5 ms·
Android is more secure, especially in recent history. You can even see it in 0 day bounties. Don't pay attention to Samsung though, that company is probably th
by resource_waste 3y ago
Android is more secure, especially in recent history. You can even see it in 0 day bounties.
Don't pay attention to Samsung though, that company is probably the Apple equivalent of android.
- saagarjha 3y agoI don’t see how the bounties back this up?
- resource_waste 3y agoSupply and demand.
- rootusrootus 3y agoThe bounties look like they have fairly comparable distribution, and just knowing the dollar figures doesn't really tell much about either supply or demand. Your inference requires that knowledge.
- resource_waste 3y ago>just knowing the dollar figures doesn't really tell much about either supply or demand. Well we just broke econ
- saagarjha 3y agoNeither is correlated to how secure something is?
- resource_waste 3y agoYes it is
- saagarjha 3y agoDespite you feeling smug about it, the economics of the zero day market are far more complex than you think they are.
- ziddoap 3y ago>Android is more secure, especially in recent history. You can even see it in 0 day bounties. This needs citations, and more than just referencing 0-day bounties. 0-day bounties are an incredibly weak signal in regards to security posture.
- hu3 3y agoPricing, and for more than zero days here: https://zerodium.com/program.html https://zerodium.com/program.html
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ziddoap 3y agoPricing of 0-days has very little correlation with the security of something, if any correlation. I'm not sure what the "and for more" you are referencing. The site lists prices, an FAQ, and events. None of that supports the argument made by parent comment.
- hiatus 3y agoThe number of public bounties for a system seems orthogonal to the number of actual vulnerabilities in a system. Of course, vulnerabilities exist independent of the existence of a bounty for them.