4 ms·
Is it just me, or should they have given him more than $120 for exposing this major flaw?
by samelawrence 13y ago
Is it just me, or should they have given him more than $120 for exposing this major flaw?
- zacharytamas 13y agoI was thinking the same. If you value a video game at $50, it comes closer to $300 but that still seems paltry for a vulnerability that seems to give full access (from the console at least) to a user's account.
- johnchristopher 13y agoExcept those games won't resell at that price. In the end it's less expensive for MS but I suppose it would satisfy a young gamer. As an adult I wouldn't like to be paid in games or in on-line subscriptions.
- bitJericho 13y agoI'm sure if MS hired you as a security researcher they would pay you better.
- watty 13y agoIt may have just been a way to get into local accounts, which I wouldn't consider "major". Also four games, one year of live, and $50 is more than $120.
- ampersandy 13y agoIf Microsoft's entire child-security protections don't work; I'd say that's fairly major. What might have been a very compelling feature for parents has been shown to be ineffective (if your kids know about the vulnerability, which for young children is admittedly unlikely). They paid him at all, which is good, but it also shows that there's no reason they couldn't have authorized a bigger payout. It's still, at most, $350. Why not free Xbox Gold for life instead of one year? There's no cost to Microsoft.
- wil421 13y agoWhy are the obligated to give something out for finding a flaw?
- unfunco 13y agoThere's no obligation, it works as a deterrent for publishing the vulnerability to potentially bad people. Many tech companies now offer a reward for submitting vulnerabilities, it's more often than not cheaper than being exposed.