4 ms·
>Deadline exceeded – automatically derestricting >The flaw was initially reported over 120 days ago to Google, which exceeds even their own 90-day disclosure de
by anon1385 11y ago
>Deadline exceeded – automatically derestricting
>The flaw was initially reported over 120 days ago to Google, which exceeds even their own 90-day disclosure deadline.
It always seemed likely that Google's hubris[1] would come back to haunt them. I guess this is that day.
It would be funny if it wasn't remote code execution affecting 950 million phones, with no official patch in sight.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8896221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8896221
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kyrra 11y agoThey have become a bit more flexible[0] after the Windows issue. They are still living by the 90 day policy, but baked in some flexibility if the vendor is communicating with them. [0] http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/02/feedback-and-data-driven-updates-to.html http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/02/feedback-and-d...
- wutbrodo 11y agoWait, either I'm grossly misunderstanding the article, or you are. The flaw the author is talking about is one that Google has been aware of for six days... Not 120. The original bug from 120 days ago was already patched. We're essentially talking about a bug in the bugfix, which obviously hasn't existed as long as the original bug itself. I'm really not seeing where "hubris" comes into this.
- anon1385 11y agoThat's the logic the blog author is using. As you can see in the bit of the article I quoted. I didn't say I necessarily agree with their analysis of this still being the same bug. The fact that they mentioned it a couple of times suggests it was a factor in their decision to release the details today (or at least wanted to poke fun at Google).