3 ms·
I think it's more the cost to find a vulnerability that has significantly reduced, not the possibility that the vulnerability could have been found. But that co
by dboreham 5mo ago
I think it's more the cost to find a vulnerability that has significantly reduced, not the possibility that the vulnerability could have been found. But that cost mattered tremendously because someone has to fund the effort to find the bugs. This economics also applies to attackers.
- orblivion 5mo agoIs Firefox less invested in this than Curl? I mean there must be some explanation for this.
- spenczar5 5mo agoIt's in the first sentence of your quote: "our continued collaboration with Anthropic" Read this as: "we get discounts, rate limit increases, a direct line to responsible product managers; in exchange we participate in friendly marketing." It's extremely common in this line of business - typical of database vendors, software tool companies, etc.
- orblivion 5mo agoThis is more in response to my original post, but okay interesting point. (When I said "invested" here I meant invested in finding security flaws.)
- Anon1096 5mo agoConspiratorial nonsense
- janc_ 5mo agoIn many countries it is mandatory to mark any form of compensated advertising as such. If your claim is true they might be breaking some laws here & there…
- cmiles74 5mo agoI would expect Firefox to be less invested in this than Curl. Firefox is aimed at consumers, Curl is embedded in a wide variety of products.