4 ms·
I would argue that it is an ethical thing to do so if it sends a signal to pay whitehats appropriately.
by juujian 1y ago
I would argue that it is an ethical thing to do so if it sends a signal to pay whitehats appropriately.
- akerl_ 1y agoWho is getting that signal? Burger King is almost certainly going to experience no damage from this. Their takeaway will likely be entirely non-existent. They’ll fix these bugs, they’ll probably implement zero changes to their internal practices, nor will they suddenly decide to spin up a bug bounty.
- chimpanzee 1y agoThe signal is for the hats. Black hats may be more likely to attack. White hats will find better things to do. Some might even swap hats.
- akerl_ 1y agoYou’ve described a totally different “signal” than the comment I replied to.
- chimpanzee 1y agoI guess I should have made it clearer by making the implicit explicit: “The signal isn’t to pay white hats more, instead…” And perhaps an addendum such as: “…which will then, indirectly and in the long run, create the signal you were replying to.”
- akerl_ 1y agoAh. I don’t have much optimism that companies like Burger King will ever get that 2nd signal (mostly because I don’t think the average consumer-facing business suffers much impact from this kind of incident), but I agree with your premise. Appreciate your clarification despite the bluntness of my reply.
- chimpanzee 1y agoAnd I appreciate your reply. It fixes the tone in our little thread and refocuses it on the topic. Thank you. Also, you’re probably right, the signal will likely pass right over Burger King’s crown.
- juujian 1y agoYeah, the signal is not exclusively to Burger King.