If you want to 'adopt' a new reality, you talk to all parties, and everyone moves up the release. That's how agreements and trust work. If you don't do so? No one will trust you ever again.
It seems like you don't agree with coordinated releases as a standard. That's fine, but irrelevant here. If you agree to coordinate, so that you can get inside info on security updates and be prepared, and then break that agreement, you're not trustworthy. No hand wavy reasons will change this fact.
I don't know many who want to deal with untrustworthy people.
what exactly is the point of maintaining coordinated disclosure even if one believes in it wholeheartedly in the case where the thing in question is under active exploitation already and there is no longer any hope of quietly solving the issue before active exploitation begins?
are we to somehow count the hypothetical future exploitees that may yet be helped by avoiding disclosure 1–1 against the actual literal current exploitees harmed by further postponing the fixes landing?
The question is where do you spend your trust. If you think that you'll always be able to find and patch 0-days before anyone else into the indefinite future then it's fine to defect.
If you want your customers to believe they won't be hung out to dry when the broader community patches before they can because you're no longer in the loop, you cooperate.
It's not like this is the last 0-day that will need to get patched and deployed in a hurry. "Not slower to patch than
virtually anyone else" is a pretty sustainable place to be.
And evidence they at least gave a heads up to everyone in on the embargo, eg "I have to release you all have 1 hour to get on board".
There is a MASSIVE difference between a small number of people exploiting in the wild, and a few hours after a release a bazillion script kiddies doing so. The move to release and break an embargo was childish, absurd, self-serving, and lacking in all common sense. Not to mention, breaking trust.
I agree with those in this thread who say, never going to do business with them. Ever.
As a customer, I'd immediately assume no one in the security community would trust them again, and seek someone else to give my money to. Why pay a) an untrustworthy company who b) now is not trusted by anyone and c) won't ever be able to early release again anyhow? And if anything, are left out of important conversations.
Way to burn bridges. You only get to be an asshat once.
But they didn't observe any exploits in the wild. They may have believed there were exploits, but no evidence of this. Also no evidence that sought to communicate the need to end the embargo earlier. Instead they sought short term commercial advantage.
My advice to their customers is to leave, Chainguard will be the last to know about exploits in future.
I wish people would name this idiotic company, I can't see Twitter here and all people are talking about is a childish video they made. I don't ever want to do business with said company, ever.
They're apparently not trustworthy, and behave as children.
>As a result of the leak and pre-announcement around 20:00 UTC, Calif, one of the security firms that had reported the issues mistakenly published a video. It showed their proof of concept working against a number of targets and revealed a few additional, though limited, details about the vulnerabilities.
If you mean docker official images, it's just the "community" maintaining it, eg "some dudes". By no means should you consider it a mechanism to get timely security updates, I've seen horrible lag on that before.
Most of docker is like this. Images provided by volunteers, and not related to the project. Using docker images you don't maintain yourself, and at least don't upgrade yourself, is not the best recipe for security.
There are different approaches and it all comes down to who you trust. I don't think there's universal answer. If you have money, find image provider who's serious about security and hopefully they'll provide patches images quickly. Otherwise using Debian packages is a good default I think.
Honestly I don't even understand why so many docker images prefer to build software from sources, rather than just installing them from debian repositories.
And if you're using a docker package it's often JUST BECAUSE the host Debian/Ubuntu server is out of date for things you need, and Docker's the easiest way to "patch" that.
2 makes sense. 1 is immensely scary as an argument.
If you don't understand the language(eg, not easy to work with), don't work professionally in it. All LLM work need audit, a second set of eyes, just as work from a coworker needs peer review prior to sign off.
How can one peer review an LLM without full, experienced knowledge?
Oh, it is very much a truth, I agree. The machine is the purpose - you can see it in all of her designs, which are very directed, intentionally, towards well-stated goals.
As for the goal of making systems which cannot run AI - this goal has always been intrinsically fulfilled by Moores law. For as long as we were progressing towards the singularity, we were incapable of it. Whether that is of importance now, as if it were ever not, is a matter of interest in the results: do we panic about AI now, or 20 years ago?
I think that there is enough of Paula Maddox out there to prove we don’t really need AI to do great things, just great people.
This is true, but I felt the same with the HTC Dream, although I guess Apple was first, they were more than a year apart. I don't miss typing 'reboot\n' in any app, or at any time, and the phone rebooting, because the first release had a left-open root session.
So the Android polish wasn't quite there on release either.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/sweater/
reply