"Google Chromium CSS contains a use-after-free vulnerability that could allow a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. This vulnerability could affect multiple web browsers that utilize Chromium, including, but not limited to, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Opera."
That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher.
> That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher.
I'd be surprised if it's above 20K$.
Bug bounties rewards are usually criminally low; doubly so when you consider the efforts usually involved in not only finding serious vulns, but demonstrating a reliable way to exploit them.
This underestimates the adaptability of threat actors. Massive cryptocurrency thefts from individuals have created a market for a rather wide range of server-side bugs.
Got a Gmail ATO? Just run it against some of the leaked cryptocurrency exchange databases, automatically scan for wallet backups and earn hundreds of millions within minutes.
People are paying tens of thousands for “bugs” that allow them to confirm if an email address is registered on a platform.
Everyone should read this comment, it does a really eloquent job explaining the situation.
The fundamental thing to understand is this: The things you hear about that people make $500k for on the gray market and the things that you see people make $20k for in a bounty program are completely different deliverables, even if the root cause bug turns out to be the same.
Quoted gray market prices are generally for working exploit chains, which require increasingly complex and valuable mitigation bypasses which work in tandem with the initial access exploit; for example, for this exploit to be particularly useful, it needs a sandbox escape.
Developing a vulnerability into a full chain requires a huge amount of risk - not weird crimey bitcoin in a back alley risk like people in this thread seem to want to imagine, but simple time-value risk. While one party is spending hundreds of hours and burning several additional exploits in the course of making a reliable and difficult-to-detect chain out of this vulnerability, fifty people are changing their fuzzer settings and sending hundreds of bugs in for bounty payout. If they hit the same bug and win their $20k, the party gambling on the $200k full chain is back to square one.
Vulnerability research for bug bounty and full-chain exploit development are effectively different fields, with dramatically different research styles and economics. The fact that they intersect sometimes doesn't mean that it makes sense to compare pricing.
I don't believe those numbers will ever come close to converging, let alone bounty prices surpassing black market prices.
It seems like these vulnerabilities will always be more valuable to people who can guarantee that their use will generate a return than to people who will use them to prevent a theoretical loss.
Beyond that, selling zero-days is a seller's market where sellers can set prices and court many buyers, but bug bounties are a buyer's market where there is only one buyer and pricing is opaque and dictated by the buyer.
So why would anyone ever take a bounty instead of selling on the black market? Risk! You might get arrested or scammed selling an exploit on the black market, black market buyers know that, so they price it in to offers.
Even though I agree with the conclusion with respect to pricing, I don't think this comment is generally accurate.
Most* valuable exploits can be sold on the gray market - not via some bootleg forum with cryptocurrency scammers or in a shadowy back alley for a briefcase full of cash, but for a simple, taxed, legal consulting fee to a forensics or spyware vendor or a government agency in a vendor shaped trenchcoat, just like any other software consulting income.
The risk isn't arrest or scam, it's investment and time-value risk. Getting a bug bounty only requires (generally) that a bug can pass for real; get a crash dump with your magic value in a good looking place, submit, and you're done.
Selling an exploit chain on the gray market generally requires that the exploit chain be reliable, useful, and difficult to detect. This is orders of magnitude more difficult and is extremely high-risk work not because of some "shady" reason, but because there's a nonzero chance that the bug doesn't actually become useful or the vendor patches it before payout.
The things you see people make $500k for on the gray market and the things you see people make $20k for in a bounty program are completely different deliverables even if the root cause / CVE turns out to be the same.
*: For some definition of most, obviously there is an extant "true" crappy cryptocurrency forum black market for exploits but it's not very lucrative or high-skill compared to the "gray market;" these places are a dumping ground for exploits which are useful only for crime and/or for people who have difficulty doing even mildly legitimate business (widely sanctioned, off the grid due to personal history, etc etc.)
I see that someone linked an old tptacek comment about this topic which per the usual explains things more eloquently, so I'll link it again here too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43025038
The market is priced at the point that the most economic for the business. Apple buying an exploit for $100m is not worth it (to apple) vs the potential loss of life of people who might be killed if sold on the black market. Buying an exploit for 1m prevents them being used to jailbreak, is good PR, and is ass covering PR insurance in case an Apple exploit cause loss of life (‘the seller could have sold to us, but instead they sold it to an evil corporation’).
You can work your day job and make $20-500k/yr or pursue drug dealing and make $5-5000k/yr. I don’t think that’s actually a compelling argument for the latter even if the opportunity cost is better.
Drugs are illegal, exploits are not illegal. Selling them to someone associated with illegal activity is probably illegal, but there is a legitimate fully legal exploit market with buyers like intelligence agencies, and an illegal market with buyers that run oppressive regimes and commit genocide.
I read this often, and I guess it could be true, but those kinds of transaction would presumably go through DNM / forums like BF and the like. Which means crypto, and full anonymity. So either the buyer trusts the seller to deliver, or the seller trusts the buyer to pay. And once you reveal the particulars of a flaw, nothing prevents the buyer from running away (this actually also occurs regularly on legal, genuine bug bounty programs - they'll patch the problem discreetly after reading the report but never follow up, never mind paying; with little recourse for the researcher).
Even revealing enough details, but not everything, about the flaw to convince a potential buyer would be detrimental to the seller, as the level of details required to convince would likely massively simplify the work of the buyer should they decide to try and find the flaw themselves instead of buying. And I imagine much of those potential buyers would be state actors or organized criminal groups, both of which do have researchers in house.
The way this trust issue is (mostly) solved in drugs DNM is through the platform itself acting as a escrow agent; but I suspect such a thing would not work as well with selling vulnerabilities, because the volume is much lower, for one thing (preventing a high enough volume for reputation building); the financial amounts generally higher, for another.
The real money to be made as a criminal alternative, I think, would be to exploit the flaw yourself on real life targets. For example to drop ransomware payloads; these days ransomware groups even offer franchises - they'll take, say, 15% of the ransom cut and provide assistance with laundering/exploiting the target/etc; and claim your infection in the name of their group.
I don't think you know anything about how these industries work and should probably read some of the published books about them, like "This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends", instead of speculating in a way that will mislead people. Most purchasers of browser exploits are nation-state groups ("gray market") who are heavily incentivized not to screw the seller and would just wire some money directly, not black market sales.
I mean, you're still restricted to selling it to your own government, otherwise getting wired a cool $250k directly would raise a few red flags I think. And how many security researchers have a contact in some government-sponsored hacking company anyway? Do you really think that convincing them to buy a supposed zero-day exploit as a one-off would be easy?
Say you're in the US. I'm sure there are some CIA teams or whatever making use of Chromium exploits "off the record", but for any official business the government would just put pressure on Google directly to get what they want. So any project making use of your zero-day would be so secret that it'd be virtually impossible for you to even get in contact with anybody interested to buy it. Sure they might not try to "screw you", but it's sort of like going to the CIA and saying, "Hey would you be interested in buying this cache of illegal guns? Perhaps you could use it to arm Cuban rebels". What do you think they would respond to that?
Eh, not really? If it's a legit company who provides services to various governments, they're going to pay you, they're going to report the income to the government, you'll get a 1099 for contract/consulting, and you'll pay your taxes on the legit income. No red flags. Assuming they're legit and not currently sanctioned by the US government that is.
> Even revealing enough details, but not everything, about the flaw to convince a potential buyer would be detrimental to the seller, as the level of details required to convince would likely massively simplify the work of the buyer should they decide to try and find the flaw themselves instead of buying.
Is conning a seller really worth it for a potential buyer? Details will help an expert find the flaw, but it still takes lots of work, and there is the risk of not finding it (and the seller will be careful next time).
> And I imagine much of those potential buyers would be state actors or organized criminal groups, both of which do have researchers in house.
They also have the money to just buy an exploit.
> The real money to be made as a criminal alternative, I think, would be to exploit the flaw yourself on real life targets. For example to drop ransomware payloads; these days ransomware groups even offer franchises - they'll take, say, 15% of the ransom cut and provide assistance with laundering/exploiting the target/etc; and claim your infection in the name of their group.
I'd imagine the skills needed to get paid from ransomware victims without getting caught to be very different from the skills needed to find a vulnerability.
Because it's nice to get $10k legally + public credit than it is to get $100k while risking arrest + prison time, getting scammed, or selling your exploit to someone that uses it to ransom a children's hospital?
Depends. Within the US, there are data export laws that could make the "whoever" part illegal. There are also conspiracy to commit a crime laws that could imply liability. There are also laws that could make performing/demonstrating certain exploits illegal, even if divulging it isn't. That could result in some legal gray area. IANAL but have worked in this domain. Obviously different jurisdictions may handle such issues differently from one another.
Issue 1: Governments which your own gov't likes, or ones which it doesn't? The latter has downsides similar to a black market sale.
Issue 2: Selling to governments generally means selling to a Creepy-Spooky Agency. Sadly, creeps & spooks can "get ideas" about their $500k also buying them rights to your future work.
HN doesn't want firefox to go away. HN wants firefox to be better, more privacy/security focused, and to stop trying to copy chrome out of the misguided hope that being a poor imitation will somehow make it more popular.
Sadly, mozilla is now an adtech company (https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-...) and by default firefox now collects your data to sell to advertisers. We can expect less and less privacy for firefox users as Mozilla is now fully committed to trying to profit from the sale of firefox users personal data to advertisers.
As a 25 year Firefox user this is spot on. I held out for 5 years hoping they would figure something out, but all they did was release weird stuff like VPNs and half baked services with a layer of "privacy" nail polish.
Brave is an example of a company doing some of the same things, but actually succeeding it appears. They have some kind of VPN thing, but also have Tor tabs for some other use cases.
They have some kind of integration with crypto wallets I have used a few times, but I'm sure Firefox has a reason they can't do that or would mess it up.
You can only watch Mozilla make so many mistakes while you suffer a worse Internet experience. The sad part is that we are paying the price now. All of the companies that can benefit from the Chrome lock in are doing so. The web extensions are neutered - and more is coming - and the reasons are exactly what you would expect: more ads and weird user hostile features like "you must keep this window in the foreground" that attempt to extract a "premium" experience from basic usage.
Mozilla failed and now the best we have is Brave. Soon the fingerprinting will be good enough Firefox will be akin to running a Tor browser with a CAPTCHA verification can for every page load.
What would be an acceptable revenue model? Google Chrome has the same privacy profile with the exception that Google retains the data for their own ad platforms.
Selling preferential search access is legally precarious due to FTC's lawsuit against Mozilla.
They could start with the one they've refused for ages even though many have asked for it. Let people directly donate to fund the development of firefox (as opposed to just giving mozilla money to funnel into any number of their other projects). They could even make money selling merch if they didn't tank the brand. Firefox could have a very nice niche to fill as a privacy focused browser for power users who desire customization and security, but sadly they don't seem interested in being that. For whatever reason they'd rather spend a fortune buying adtech from facebook employees and be a chrome clone that pushes ads and sells user data, and that isn't going to inspire support from users.
That said, I'm not convinced that every open source project needs to be profit generating. Many projects are hugely successful without resorting to ads. What makes it possible for VLC or even Arch Linux to thrive without advertising that couldn't work just as well for firefox? The solution is certainly not to turn Firefox into a project that their users no longer want to support or use at all, but that seems to be where they are headed by selling out their userbase.
Well said. Do you know of any recent reports or if anyone has actually gone through the funding calculations regarding the funding model you described (let’s call it “FF-direct”) versus Mozilla’s status quo funding model?
Primary questions are: How much does FF cost to sustain? How much is spent on new performance, functionality and feature development? What number does Firefox need to compete directly with Chrome? If you asked an experienced FF project contributor what is the delta between the previous two questions?
- a 20+ year Firefox power user very familiar with the FF project, web browsers, and how they compete
I haven't seen those kinds of numbers, but I agree they'd be good to have.
I know that firefox makes a massive amount of money from Google (last I heard they made something like 400 million a year) and firefox was bringing in 90% of Mozilla's total income which means that the money firefox beings in isn't just going into firefox, but is holding up everything mozilla does. Even if a donation model was sufficient to support the browser, mozilla may not be happy about losing almost everything else they have going.
As for competing with chrome, I don't think they need to. Most people's only computer these days is an android phone and chrome is always going to be a first class citizen there. We saw the same thing with IE when windows was the operating system most people used.
It's perfectly fine for Chrome to be the default browser for the common people leaving firefox to be the preferred choice of the computer savvy. Firefox could slowly gain an audience as people start to become more aware of how chrome violates their privacy or as they seek relief from the worsening cesspool of ads chrome is encouraging the internet to become, but firefox never has to be number 1 or anywhere close to that in order to be successful and valued.
HN wants Firefox but with better stewardship and fewer misdirected funds.
Mozilla - wrongly - believes that the majority of FF users believe in Mozilla's hobby projects rather than that they care about their browser.
That's why - as far as I know - to this day it is impossible to directly fund Firefox. They'd rather take money from google than to be focusing on the one thing that matters.
HN, and firefox users, can never decide where the money should go or what the goals should be. The problem with producing the better product is the amount of in-fighting increases exponentially. Google produces a "fuck you got mine" type browser and everyone knows it, so nobody really cares when they make god awful privacy decisions or intentionally produce worst standards to try to fuck their customers up the ass in new and exciting ways.
When Firefox introduces a new feature, half the people complain it's stupid and worthless while the other half complain it's not enough. And, when it inevitably gets axed, it magically turns out actually it was beloved the whole time and oh no my Grandma used Pocket as life support and now she can't breath.
When Firefox implements new web standards half the people complain that they're bending to Google's whim and that these standards are stupid. We don't want them, just focus on performance and what people really care about! ... While the other half complains that it took so long, and in the meantime they switched to a real browser, like Chrome.
Of course, Safari is even further behind Firefox in standards and frankly it's not even close, but does anyone care? Of course not. Apple is another "fuck you got mine" type company. People love that.
And it doesn't just end at Firefox. Oh, no. Firefox OS? Depending on who you ask it's either the biggest missed opportunity ever or one of Mozilla's worst money burning schemes. It's Schrödinger's software - in a parallel universe where it took it off everyone would've always wanted it, and in the current universe nobody ever wanted it.
The biggest mistake Mozilla made was extending any kind of goodwill to their customer base. Clearly, that doesn't work and people do not like it. Let's all stop fucking around and be real for a second - nobody, and I do mean nobody, is switching to Google Chrome because Mozilla made some mistake. They're not, because the reality is that Firefox is truly irreplaceable and ahead of Chrome in so many aspects. They're switching to Chrome because they just don't care about being fucked up the ass, or worse, they secretly want to be.
I don't think that Mozilla believes that their pet projects are what the use community wants. I think they just don't care. Google's check will clear next year anyways.
It's unlikely, but it does actually happen. I've seen more than one complete rewrite of something important that had exactly the same bug. And I'm very sure that those sources were not related somehow.
That came to my mind as well. CSS was one of the earliest major applications of Rust in FireFox. I believe that work was when the "Fearless Concurrency" slogan was popularized.
Except: Spotify (through ads), Microsoft Teams (through teams apps), Notion (through user embedded iframes), Obsidian (through user embedded iframes), VSCode (through extensions), etc...
It would also require a sandbox escape to be a meaningful vulnerability.
Unfortunately, "seen in the wild" likely means that they _also_ had a sandbox escape, which likely isn't revealed publicly because it's not a vulnerability in properly running execution (i.e., if the heap were not already corrupted, no vulnerability exists).
I love rust but honestly I am more scared about supply chain attacks through cargo than memory corruption bugs. The reason being that supply chain attacks are probably way cheaper to pull off than finding these bugs
The statistics we have on real world security exploits proves that most security exploits are not coming from supply chain attacks though.
Memory safety related security exploits happen in a steady stream in basically all non-trivial C projects, but supply chain attacks, while possible, are much more rare.
I'm not saying we shouldn't care about both issues, but the idea is to fix the low hanging fruit and common cases before optimizing for things that aren't in practice that big of a deal.
Also, C is not inherently invulnerable to supply chain attacks either!
But this is irrelevant. If you're afraid of third-party code, you can just... choose not to use third-party code? Meanwhile, if I'm afraid of memory corruption in C, I cannot just choose not to have memory corruption; I must instead simply choose not to use C. Meanwhile, Chromium uses tons of third-party Rust code, and has thereby judged the risk differently.
Maybe it's more complicated than that? With allocate/delete discipline, C can be fairly safe memory-wise (written a million lines of code in C). But automated package managers etc can bring in code under the covers, and you end up with something you didn't ask for. By that point of view, we reverse the conclusion.
>can be fairly safe memory-wise (written a million lines of code in C)
We are currently in a thread, where a major application has a heap corruption error in its CSS parser, and it's not even rare for such errors to occur. This doesn't seem true.
>But automated package managers etc can bring in code under the covers, and you end up with something you didn't ask for.
Last year there was a backdoor inserted into xz that was only caught because someone thought their CPU usage a little too high. I don't think the whole "C is safer because people don't use dependencies" is actually sound.
If you can bring in 3rd party libraries, you can be hit with a supply chain attack. C and C++ aren't immune, it's just harder to pull off due to dependency management being more complex (meaning you'll work with less dependencies naturally).
It's not more complex in C or C++, you just have less of a culture of buying into a whole eco-system. C and C++ play nice with the build system that you bring, rather than that you are forced into a particular way of working.
It's 'just a compiler' (ok, a bit more than that). I don't need to use a particular IDE, a particular build system, a particular package manager or even a particular repository.
That is not to throw shade on those other languages, each to their own, but I just like my tools to stay in their lane.
Just like I have a drawer full of different hammers rather than one hammer with 12 different heads, a screwdriver, a hardware store and a drill attachment. I wouldn't know what to do with it.
You’ll find more quality libraries in C because people don’t care about splitting them down to microscopic parcels. Even something like ‘just’ have tens of deps, including one to check that something is executable.
You also won’t typically find C/C++ developers blinding yolo’ing the latest version of a dependency from the Internet into their CI/CD pipeline.
They’ll stick with a stable version that has the features they need until they have a good reason to move. That version will be one they’ve decided to ship themselves, or it’ll be provided by someone like Debian or Red Hat.
yes, the average amount of dependencies used per dependency appears to be much larger in rust and thats what I meant and is worrying me. In theory C can be written in a memory safe manner, and in theory rust can be used without large junks of supply vulnerabilities. both of these are not the case in practice though
> both of these are not the case in practice though
No, people routinely write Rust with no third-party dependencies, and yet people do not routinely write C code that is memory-safe. Your threat model needs re-evaluating. Also keep in mind that the most common dependencies (rand, serde, regex, etc) are literally provided by the Rust project itself, and are no more susceptible to supply chain attacks than the compiler.
I know it's a sensitive topic for a lot of people, but as I said, I love rust. I don't know a lot of rust projects though that don't use any dependencies. In my humble opinion, disregarding the risks of such supply chain attacks is at least as bad as people disregarding the risk of memory unsafe code. But keep in mind, I'm not saying don't use rust.
One difference is that it's an incredibly hard problem to check whether your C code is memory safe since every single line of your code is a risk. On the other hand, it's easy to at least assess where your supply vulnerabilities lie (read Cargo.toml), and you can enforce your policy of choice (e.g. whitelist a few specific dependencies only, vendor them, etc).
I would argue that almost all major rust projects use dependencies. Checking the dependencies for vulnerabilities might be just as difficult as checking C code for memory safety, maybe even worse, because dependencies have dependencies and the amount of code to be checked can easily sky rocket. The problem gets even worse if you consider that not all rust code is safe, and that C libraries can be included and so on
That being said as many above have pointed out you can choose not to bring in dependencies. The Chrome team already does this with the font parser library they limit dependencies to 1 or 2 trusted ones with little to no transitive dependencies. Let's not pretend C / C++ is immune to this we had the xz vuln not too long ago. C / C++ has the benefit of the culture not using as many dependencies but this is still a problem that exists. With the increase of code in the world due to ai this is a problem we're going to need to fix sooner rather than later.
I don't think the supply chain should be a blocker for using rust especially when once of the best C++ teams in the world with good funding struggles to always write perfect code. The chrome team has shown precedent for moving to rust safely and avoiding dependency hell, they'll just need to do it again.
They have hundreds of engineers many of which are very gifted, hell they can write their own dependencies!
Yeah I am not saying don't use rust. But the average amount of dependencies used by a dependency makes a big difference in my opinion. The reality is, most people will use wast amounts of dependencies - especially in vibe coded environments, where LLMs try to save a few tokens.
The problem exists in C/C++ too, but the depth of dependencies are much smaller though, making the attack surface smaller, and damage gets spread to fewer products.
If I personally had to choose between a product written in C without dependencies to run on openbsd versus the same product written in rust with a few dependencies I would probably choose the C implementation. Even if there is a memory bug, if the underlying system is right they are extremely difficult/expensive to exploit. Abusing a supply chain on the other hand is very easy
But the thing is these DO get exploited in the wild we see that again and again in high value targets like operating systems. That's why apple and google go to such high extremes to work in things like bounds checking. ROP JOB chains have gotten good and LLMS are even able to help these days (if you have the bankroll)
It's a culture problem and I still have hope we can change that. My big hope is that as more big players get into it, windows, linux, android, chome, we'll get high quality stand alone packages. Many of these products have to reach certain standards. We saw this recently with JPEGXL. It got accepted into chromium and they've been diligent as to not bring in additional external dependencies.
Projects like sudo-rs take the same approach. As always good engineers will make good code as more of a niche for rust gets carved out I belive we'll see an ecosystem more like c / cpp and less like nodejs (of course this is just my sepeculation)
> But the thing is these DO get exploited in the wild we see that again and again in high value targets like operating systems.
Yes but so do supply chain attacks. I mean we both know there's never a way to be absolutely secure and it's all just about probability. The question is how to determine what product may have better chances. All I am saying is that I personally prioritize fewer dependencies over memory safety.
I like your optimism, which I unfortunately struggle to share. I believe the quality of code will go down, there will be a lot of vibe code, and in general inexperienced people who don't put in the cognitive effort to pay attention to it. As software gets cheaper with AI, it will also become increasingly difficult to find the good things in a sea of slop. A good time for all the security engineers though ;)
right but these differ drastically, one is writing perfect code which is quite difficult the other is opting not to take a dependency. One is much more realistic.
I agree on software quality going down, I'm looking very closely at foundational software being written in rust (mostly in the kernel) and it seems to be okay for now.
The other hope is that maybe one day rust will get a fatter standard lib. I understand the opposition to this but I really want a series of crates tied strongly to the ecosystem and funded and audited by the foundation. I think this is the way they were going with offering the foundation maintainer fund.
Personally I'm thinking about moving my career into embedded to escape the massive dependencies and learn more about how computers really work without all the slop on top.
Nothing eliminates the risk but it is basically a best-in-class solution. If your primary concern is supply chain risk, there you go, best in class defense against it.
If anything, what are you doing about supply chain for the existing code base? How is cargo worse here when cargo-vet exists and is actively maintained by Google, Mozilla, and others?
true, but rusts success in creating an easy to use dependency manager is the curse. In general rust software seems to use a larger amount of dependencies than c/c++ due to that, where each is at risk of becoming an attack vector. my prediction is that we will see some abuse of this in future, similar to what npm experienced
All mainstream package managers are built with zero forethought into security, as far as I can tell. I don't think any of them are any good at it at all, otherwise they wouldn't give arbitrary code execution with literally zero restrictions, ability to audit, etc.
That said, `cargo-vet` is easily the best tool for mitigating this that I am aware of and it exists for Rust and is actively maintained by Google, Mozilla, and many others. I think it's fine to say "Rust encourages using more dependencies" but it has to be acknowledged that Rust also brings with it the best in class tool for supply chain security.
Could it be better? Absolutely. God yes. Why is cargo giving access to `~/.ssh/` for every `build.sh`? Why do package managers not make any effort to sandbox? But that's life today.
It was intended as a joke reference to the 2004 Kerry / Bush debate. It's not a coincidence that Google would leave off an ad-blocking variant of Chrome.
did you also take poland being omitted to be some sort of conspiracy? seems you missed the point of why that "Actually, you forgot..." moment became such a punchline. Like it or not Brave is a very niche browser with rather insignificant market share why you would expect them to be mentioned in the first place is entirely lost on me. there are dozens of chromium forks also with under 1% market share, should we be forced to mention them all?
It semeed to me like an obvious telegraph of bias.
I understand the meme very well. What made the Poland meme was that Poland's membership in the coalition was irrelevant to the "grand coalition" narrative--Kerry's omission of Poland is therefore in the same vein as Google's.
If you understand the meme "very well" then what do you mean by "telegraph of bias"? The joke is that Poland was largely irrelevant compared to the United States in that context, making Bush's (and your own) comeback laughable. It's not a conspiracy or "bias" that you don't mention Poland or the other members of the coalition for the same reason you don't mention every single Chromium fork, because realistically its not relevant.
And just to get ahead of it, I sure hope you are not tempted to make an equivalency between a Polish death and not mentioning Brave in a vain effort to resuscitate your position. Because not only would that be extremely misplaced given you provided the clumsy reference in the first place, but Kerry's point in of itself doesn't negate that. You can both understand any life lost is a tragedy while also understand there is no "grand coalition" when the United States shares > 90% of the costs. Just like (even though again, these things should not be compared, but just to indulge the comparison you yourself invoked) maybe Brave or some other under 1% fork does some good things, but that doesn't mean it is relevant to list them for this kind of announcement or any time chromium comes up.
Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to say. Following the allusion to the meme you brought up would be to realize that saying "Actually, you forgot about Brave" is a funny thing to say because its irrelevant and thus a dumb thing to say. It seems you understand there is a joke being made here but perhaps don't realize you're on the wrong side of it.
I wonder how many bugs like this are lurking in the various dark corners of the Chromium/Blink codebase that nobody has taken a good, hard look at in a long time.
Given the staggering importance of the projects they should really have a full-time, well-staffed, well-funded, dedicated team combing through every line, hunting these things down, and fixing them before they have a chance to be used. It'd be a better use of resources than smart fridge integration or whatever other bells and whistles Google has most recently decided to tack onto Chrome.
To me at least it reads funny because when I think of CSS I think of the language itself and not the accompanying tools that are then running the CSS.
Saying "Markdown has a CVE" would sound equally off.
I'm aware that its not actually CSS having the vulnerability but when simplified that's what it sounds like.
"Many of our security bugs are detected using AddressSanitizer, MemorySanitizer, UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer, Control Flow Integrity, libFuzzer, or AFL."
Interesting they are listing archived projects and not OSS-Fuzz. What's the reason for this?
I don't quite understand the vulnerability, when exploited, you can get information about the page from which the exploit code is running. Without a sandbox escape or XSS, that seems almost completely harmless?
Browser exploits are almost always two steps: you exploit a renderer bug in order to get arbitrary code execution inside a sandboxed process, and then you use a second sandbox escape exploit in order to gain arbitrary code execution in the non-sandboxed broker process. The first line of that (almost definitely AI generated) summary is the bad part, and means that this is one half of a full browser compromise chain. The fact that you still need a sandbox escape doesn't mean that it is harmless, especially since if it's being exploited in the wild that means whoever is using it probably does also have a sandbox escape they are pairing with it.
The fact that these still show up is pretty wild to me. Don't we have a bunch of tools that should create memory-safish binaries by applying the same validation checks that memory-safe languages get for free purely from their design?
I get that css has changed a lot over the years with variables, scopes and adopting things from less/sass/coffee, but people use no-script for the reason because javascript is risky, but what if css can be just as risky... time to also have no-style?
Honestly, pretty excited for the full report since it's either stupid as hell or a multi-step attack chain.
> Don't we have a bunch of tools that should create memory-safish binaries by applying the same validation checks that memory-safe languages get for free purely from their design?
No, we don't. All of the ones we have are heavily leveraged in Chromium or were outright developed at Google for similar projects. 10s of billions are spent to try to get Chromium to not have these vulnerabilities, using those tools. And here we are.
I'll elaborate a bit. Things like sanitizers largely rely on test coverage. Google spends a lot of money on things like fuzzing, but coverage is still a critical requirement. For a massive codebase, gettign proper coverage is obviously really tricky. We'll have to learn more about this vulnerability but you can see how even just that limitation alone is sufficient to explain gaps.
> Things like sanitizers largely rely on test coverage.
And not in a trivial “this line is traversed” way, you need to actually trigger the error condition at runtime for a sanitizer to see anything. Which is why I always shake my head at claims that go has “amazing thread safety” because it has the race detector (aka tsan). That’s the opposite of thread safety. It is, if anything, an admission to a lack of it.
They do run in a sandbox, and this exploit gives the attacker RCE inside the sandbox. It is not in and of itself a sandbox escape.
However if you have arbitrary code execution then you can groom the heap with malloc/new to create the layout for a heap overflow->ret2libc or something similar
I've heard this sentiment a lot, that governments/secret agencies/whoever create zero-days intentionally, for their own use.
This is an interesting thought to me (like, how does one create a zero-day that doesn't look intentional?) but the more I think about it, the more I start to believe that this fully is not necessary. There are enough faulty humans and memory unsafe languages in the loop that there will always be a zero-day somewhere, you just need to find it.
(this isn't to say something like the NSA has never created or ordered the creation of a backdoor - I just don't think it would be in the form of an "unintentional" zero-day exploit)
Devtools is seemingly partially broken in this version, if I have devtools open on a reasonably dynamic web app Chrome will crash within a minute or two
It's also been ridiculously slow for a month or two now :/ not a good time to be working on some relatively intricate performance optimisation with DevTools taking 1-4 seconds to even start the performance recording.
It refers to your many days software is available for, with zero implying it is not yet out so you couldn't have installed a new version and that's what makes it a risky bug
The term has long watered-down to mean any vulnerability (since it was always a zero-day at some point before the patch release, I guess is those people's logic? idk). Fear inflation and shoehorning seems to happen to any type of scary/scarier/scariest attack term. Might be easiest not to put too much thought into media headlines containing 0day, hacker, crypto, AI, etc. Recently saw non-R RCEs and supply chain attacks not being about anyone's supply chain copied happily onto HN
It's original meaning was days since software release, without any security connotation attached. It came from the warez scene, where groups competed to crack software and make it available to the scene earlier and earlier. A week after general release, three days, same-day. The ultimate was 0-day software, software which was not yet available to the general public.
In a security context, it has come to mean days since a mitigation was released. Prior to disclosure or mitigation, all vulnerabilities are "0-day", which may be for weeks, months, or years.
It's not really an inflation of the term, just a shifting of context. "Days since software was released" -> "Days since a mitigation for a given vulnerability was released".
Wikipedia: A zero-day (also known as a 0-day) is a vulnerability or security hole in a computer system unknown to its developers or anyone capable of mitigating it
This seems logical since by etymology of zeroday it should apply to the release (=disclosure) of a vuln.
Absolutely nothing in the announcement or other publicly available source implies that, to my knowledge. Might as well speculate if a random passer-by on the street is secretly a martian.
That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher.
I'd be surprised if it's above 20K$.
Bug bounties rewards are usually criminally low; doubly so when you consider the efforts usually involved in not only finding serious vulns, but demonstrating a reliable way to exploit them.
Got a Gmail ATO? Just run it against some of the leaked cryptocurrency exchange databases, automatically scan for wallet backups and earn hundreds of millions within minutes.
People are paying tens of thousands for “bugs” that allow them to confirm if an email address is registered on a platform.
The fundamental thing to understand is this: The things you hear about that people make $500k for on the gray market and the things that you see people make $20k for in a bounty program are completely different deliverables, even if the root cause bug turns out to be the same.
Quoted gray market prices are generally for working exploit chains, which require increasingly complex and valuable mitigation bypasses which work in tandem with the initial access exploit; for example, for this exploit to be particularly useful, it needs a sandbox escape.
Developing a vulnerability into a full chain requires a huge amount of risk - not weird crimey bitcoin in a back alley risk like people in this thread seem to want to imagine, but simple time-value risk. While one party is spending hundreds of hours and burning several additional exploits in the course of making a reliable and difficult-to-detect chain out of this vulnerability, fifty people are changing their fuzzer settings and sending hundreds of bugs in for bounty payout. If they hit the same bug and win their $20k, the party gambling on the $200k full chain is back to square one.
Vulnerability research for bug bounty and full-chain exploit development are effectively different fields, with dramatically different research styles and economics. The fact that they intersect sometimes doesn't mean that it makes sense to compare pricing.
Offer $25K and it is "How dare a trillion dollar company pay so little?"
Offer $250K and it is "Hmm. Exception! Must be marketing!"
What precisely is an acceptable number?
It seems like these vulnerabilities will always be more valuable to people who can guarantee that their use will generate a return than to people who will use them to prevent a theoretical loss.
Beyond that, selling zero-days is a seller's market where sellers can set prices and court many buyers, but bug bounties are a buyer's market where there is only one buyer and pricing is opaque and dictated by the buyer.
So why would anyone ever take a bounty instead of selling on the black market? Risk! You might get arrested or scammed selling an exploit on the black market, black market buyers know that, so they price it in to offers.
Most* valuable exploits can be sold on the gray market - not via some bootleg forum with cryptocurrency scammers or in a shadowy back alley for a briefcase full of cash, but for a simple, taxed, legal consulting fee to a forensics or spyware vendor or a government agency in a vendor shaped trenchcoat, just like any other software consulting income.
The risk isn't arrest or scam, it's investment and time-value risk. Getting a bug bounty only requires (generally) that a bug can pass for real; get a crash dump with your magic value in a good looking place, submit, and you're done.
Selling an exploit chain on the gray market generally requires that the exploit chain be reliable, useful, and difficult to detect. This is orders of magnitude more difficult and is extremely high-risk work not because of some "shady" reason, but because there's a nonzero chance that the bug doesn't actually become useful or the vendor patches it before payout.
The things you see people make $500k for on the gray market and the things you see people make $20k for in a bounty program are completely different deliverables even if the root cause / CVE turns out to be the same.
*: For some definition of most, obviously there is an extant "true" crappy cryptocurrency forum black market for exploits but it's not very lucrative or high-skill compared to the "gray market;" these places are a dumping ground for exploits which are useful only for crime and/or for people who have difficulty doing even mildly legitimate business (widely sanctioned, off the grid due to personal history, etc etc.)
I see that someone linked an old tptacek comment about this topic which per the usual explains things more eloquently, so I'll link it again here too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43025038
I like to believe there are also ethics involved in most cases
Even revealing enough details, but not everything, about the flaw to convince a potential buyer would be detrimental to the seller, as the level of details required to convince would likely massively simplify the work of the buyer should they decide to try and find the flaw themselves instead of buying. And I imagine much of those potential buyers would be state actors or organized criminal groups, both of which do have researchers in house.
The way this trust issue is (mostly) solved in drugs DNM is through the platform itself acting as a escrow agent; but I suspect such a thing would not work as well with selling vulnerabilities, because the volume is much lower, for one thing (preventing a high enough volume for reputation building); the financial amounts generally higher, for another.
The real money to be made as a criminal alternative, I think, would be to exploit the flaw yourself on real life targets. For example to drop ransomware payloads; these days ransomware groups even offer franchises - they'll take, say, 15% of the ransom cut and provide assistance with laundering/exploiting the target/etc; and claim your infection in the name of their group.
Say you're in the US. I'm sure there are some CIA teams or whatever making use of Chromium exploits "off the record", but for any official business the government would just put pressure on Google directly to get what they want. So any project making use of your zero-day would be so secret that it'd be virtually impossible for you to even get in contact with anybody interested to buy it. Sure they might not try to "screw you", but it's sort of like going to the CIA and saying, "Hey would you be interested in buying this cache of illegal guns? Perhaps you could use it to arm Cuban rebels". What do you think they would respond to that?
Is conning a seller really worth it for a potential buyer? Details will help an expert find the flaw, but it still takes lots of work, and there is the risk of not finding it (and the seller will be careful next time).
> And I imagine much of those potential buyers would be state actors or organized criminal groups, both of which do have researchers in house.
They also have the money to just buy an exploit.
> The real money to be made as a criminal alternative, I think, would be to exploit the flaw yourself on real life targets. For example to drop ransomware payloads; these days ransomware groups even offer franchises - they'll take, say, 15% of the ransom cut and provide assistance with laundering/exploiting the target/etc; and claim your infection in the name of their group.
I'd imagine the skills needed to get paid from ransomware victims without getting caught to be very different from the skills needed to find a vulnerability.
Issue 2: Selling to governments generally means selling to a Creepy-Spooky Agency. Sadly, creeps & spooks can "get ideas" about their $500k also buying them rights to your future work.
Is this a requirement for most bug bounty programs? Particularly the “reliable” bit?
It’s why Firefox and Safari as so important despite HN’a wish they’d go away.
Sadly, mozilla is now an adtech company (https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-...) and by default firefox now collects your data to sell to advertisers. We can expect less and less privacy for firefox users as Mozilla is now fully committed to trying to profit from the sale of firefox users personal data to advertisers.
Brave is an example of a company doing some of the same things, but actually succeeding it appears. They have some kind of VPN thing, but also have Tor tabs for some other use cases.
They have some kind of integration with crypto wallets I have used a few times, but I'm sure Firefox has a reason they can't do that or would mess it up.
You can only watch Mozilla make so many mistakes while you suffer a worse Internet experience. The sad part is that we are paying the price now. All of the companies that can benefit from the Chrome lock in are doing so. The web extensions are neutered - and more is coming - and the reasons are exactly what you would expect: more ads and weird user hostile features like "you must keep this window in the foreground" that attempt to extract a "premium" experience from basic usage.
Mozilla failed and now the best we have is Brave. Soon the fingerprinting will be good enough Firefox will be akin to running a Tor browser with a CAPTCHA verification can for every page load.
Selling preferential search access is legally precarious due to FTC's lawsuit against Mozilla.
They could start with the one they've refused for ages even though many have asked for it. Let people directly donate to fund the development of firefox (as opposed to just giving mozilla money to funnel into any number of their other projects). They could even make money selling merch if they didn't tank the brand. Firefox could have a very nice niche to fill as a privacy focused browser for power users who desire customization and security, but sadly they don't seem interested in being that. For whatever reason they'd rather spend a fortune buying adtech from facebook employees and be a chrome clone that pushes ads and sells user data, and that isn't going to inspire support from users.
That said, I'm not convinced that every open source project needs to be profit generating. Many projects are hugely successful without resorting to ads. What makes it possible for VLC or even Arch Linux to thrive without advertising that couldn't work just as well for firefox? The solution is certainly not to turn Firefox into a project that their users no longer want to support or use at all, but that seems to be where they are headed by selling out their userbase.
Primary questions are: How much does FF cost to sustain? How much is spent on new performance, functionality and feature development? What number does Firefox need to compete directly with Chrome? If you asked an experienced FF project contributor what is the delta between the previous two questions?
- a 20+ year Firefox power user very familiar with the FF project, web browsers, and how they compete
Looking around I find https://stateof.mozilla.org/ledger and https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202... which might help answer some of those questions.
As for competing with chrome, I don't think they need to. Most people's only computer these days is an android phone and chrome is always going to be a first class citizen there. We saw the same thing with IE when windows was the operating system most people used.
It's perfectly fine for Chrome to be the default browser for the common people leaving firefox to be the preferred choice of the computer savvy. Firefox could slowly gain an audience as people start to become more aware of how chrome violates their privacy or as they seek relief from the worsening cesspool of ads chrome is encouraging the internet to become, but firefox never has to be number 1 or anywhere close to that in order to be successful and valued.
Mozilla - wrongly - believes that the majority of FF users believe in Mozilla's hobby projects rather than that they care about their browser.
That's why - as far as I know - to this day it is impossible to directly fund Firefox. They'd rather take money from google than to be focusing on the one thing that matters.
When Firefox introduces a new feature, half the people complain it's stupid and worthless while the other half complain it's not enough. And, when it inevitably gets axed, it magically turns out actually it was beloved the whole time and oh no my Grandma used Pocket as life support and now she can't breath.
When Firefox implements new web standards half the people complain that they're bending to Google's whim and that these standards are stupid. We don't want them, just focus on performance and what people really care about! ... While the other half complains that it took so long, and in the meantime they switched to a real browser, like Chrome.
Of course, Safari is even further behind Firefox in standards and frankly it's not even close, but does anyone care? Of course not. Apple is another "fuck you got mine" type company. People love that.
And it doesn't just end at Firefox. Oh, no. Firefox OS? Depending on who you ask it's either the biggest missed opportunity ever or one of Mozilla's worst money burning schemes. It's Schrödinger's software - in a parallel universe where it took it off everyone would've always wanted it, and in the current universe nobody ever wanted it.
The biggest mistake Mozilla made was extending any kind of goodwill to their customer base. Clearly, that doesn't work and people do not like it. Let's all stop fucking around and be real for a second - nobody, and I do mean nobody, is switching to Google Chrome because Mozilla made some mistake. They're not, because the reality is that Firefox is truly irreplaceable and ahead of Chrome in so many aspects. They're switching to Chrome because they just don't care about being fucked up the ass, or worse, they secretly want to be.
Although I must admit to the guilty pleasure of gleefully using Chromium-only features in internal apps where users are guaranteed to run Edge.
/s
Unfortunately, "seen in the wild" likely means that they _also_ had a sandbox escape, which likely isn't revealed publicly because it's not a vulnerability in properly running execution (i.e., if the heap were not already corrupted, no vulnerability exists).
Memory safety related security exploits happen in a steady stream in basically all non-trivial C projects, but supply chain attacks, while possible, are much more rare.
I'm not saying we shouldn't care about both issues, but the idea is to fix the low hanging fruit and common cases before optimizing for things that aren't in practice that big of a deal.
Also, C is not inherently invulnerable to supply chain attacks either!
We are currently in a thread, where a major application has a heap corruption error in its CSS parser, and it's not even rare for such errors to occur. This doesn't seem true.
>But automated package managers etc can bring in code under the covers, and you end up with something you didn't ask for.
Last year there was a backdoor inserted into xz that was only caught because someone thought their CPU usage a little too high. I don't think the whole "C is safer because people don't use dependencies" is actually sound.
The last 40-50 years have conclusively shown us that relying on the programmer to be disciplined, yourself included, does not work.
It's 'just a compiler' (ok, a bit more than that). I don't need to use a particular IDE, a particular build system, a particular package manager or even a particular repository.
That is not to throw shade on those other languages, each to their own, but I just like my tools to stay in their lane.
Just like I have a drawer full of different hammers rather than one hammer with 12 different heads, a screwdriver, a hardware store and a drill attachment. I wouldn't know what to do with it.
https://github.com/casey/just/blob/master/Cargo.toml
That’s just asking for trouble down the line.
They’ll stick with a stable version that has the features they need until they have a good reason to move. That version will be one they’ve decided to ship themselves, or it’ll be provided by someone like Debian or Red Hat.
Most corporations are already using the likes of Nexus or JFrog Artifactory, regardless of the programming language.
No, people routinely write Rust with no third-party dependencies, and yet people do not routinely write C code that is memory-safe. Your threat model needs re-evaluating. Also keep in mind that the most common dependencies (rand, serde, regex, etc) are literally provided by the Rust project itself, and are no more susceptible to supply chain attacks than the compiler.
That being said as many above have pointed out you can choose not to bring in dependencies. The Chrome team already does this with the font parser library they limit dependencies to 1 or 2 trusted ones with little to no transitive dependencies. Let's not pretend C / C++ is immune to this we had the xz vuln not too long ago. C / C++ has the benefit of the culture not using as many dependencies but this is still a problem that exists. With the increase of code in the world due to ai this is a problem we're going to need to fix sooner rather than later.
I don't think the supply chain should be a blocker for using rust especially when once of the best C++ teams in the world with good funding struggles to always write perfect code. The chrome team has shown precedent for moving to rust safely and avoiding dependency hell, they'll just need to do it again.
They have hundreds of engineers many of which are very gifted, hell they can write their own dependencies!
The problem exists in C/C++ too, but the depth of dependencies are much smaller though, making the attack surface smaller, and damage gets spread to fewer products.
If I personally had to choose between a product written in C without dependencies to run on openbsd versus the same product written in rust with a few dependencies I would probably choose the C implementation. Even if there is a memory bug, if the underlying system is right they are extremely difficult/expensive to exploit. Abusing a supply chain on the other hand is very easy
It's a culture problem and I still have hope we can change that. My big hope is that as more big players get into it, windows, linux, android, chome, we'll get high quality stand alone packages. Many of these products have to reach certain standards. We saw this recently with JPEGXL. It got accepted into chromium and they've been diligent as to not bring in additional external dependencies.
Projects like sudo-rs take the same approach. As always good engineers will make good code as more of a niche for rust gets carved out I belive we'll see an ecosystem more like c / cpp and less like nodejs (of course this is just my sepeculation)
Yes but so do supply chain attacks. I mean we both know there's never a way to be absolutely secure and it's all just about probability. The question is how to determine what product may have better chances. All I am saying is that I personally prioritize fewer dependencies over memory safety.
I like your optimism, which I unfortunately struggle to share. I believe the quality of code will go down, there will be a lot of vibe code, and in general inexperienced people who don't put in the cognitive effort to pay attention to it. As software gets cheaper with AI, it will also become increasingly difficult to find the good things in a sea of slop. A good time for all the security engineers though ;)
I agree on software quality going down, I'm looking very closely at foundational software being written in rust (mostly in the kernel) and it seems to be okay for now.
The other hope is that maybe one day rust will get a fatter standard lib. I understand the opposition to this but I really want a series of crates tied strongly to the ecosystem and funded and audited by the foundation. I think this is the way they were going with offering the foundation maintainer fund.
Personally I'm thinking about moving my career into embedded to escape the massive dependencies and learn more about how computers really work without all the slop on top.
If anything, what are you doing about supply chain for the existing code base? How is cargo worse here when cargo-vet exists and is actively maintained by Google, Mozilla, and others?
That said, `cargo-vet` is easily the best tool for mitigating this that I am aware of and it exists for Rust and is actively maintained by Google, Mozilla, and many others. I think it's fine to say "Rust encourages using more dependencies" but it has to be acknowledged that Rust also brings with it the best in class tool for supply chain security.
Could it be better? Absolutely. God yes. Why is cargo giving access to `~/.ssh/` for every `build.sh`? Why do package managers not make any effort to sandbox? But that's life today.
I understand the meme very well. What made the Poland meme was that Poland's membership in the coalition was irrelevant to the "grand coalition" narrative--Kerry's omission of Poland is therefore in the same vein as Google's.
And just to get ahead of it, I sure hope you are not tempted to make an equivalency between a Polish death and not mentioning Brave in a vain effort to resuscitate your position. Because not only would that be extremely misplaced given you provided the clumsy reference in the first place, but Kerry's point in of itself doesn't negate that. You can both understand any life lost is a tragedy while also understand there is no "grand coalition" when the United States shares > 90% of the costs. Just like (even though again, these things should not be compared, but just to indulge the comparison you yourself invoked) maybe Brave or some other under 1% fork does some good things, but that doesn't mean it is relevant to list them for this kind of announcement or any time chromium comes up.
Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to say. Following the allusion to the meme you brought up would be to realize that saying "Actually, you forgot about Brave" is a funny thing to say because its irrelevant and thus a dumb thing to say. It seems you understand there is a joke being made here but perhaps don't realize you're on the wrong side of it.
Given the staggering importance of the projects they should really have a full-time, well-staffed, well-funded, dedicated team combing through every line, hunting these things down, and fixing them before they have a chance to be used. It'd be a better use of resources than smart fridge integration or whatever other bells and whistles Google has most recently decided to tack onto Chrome.
Saying "Markdown has a CVE" would sound equally off. I'm aware that its not actually CSS having the vulnerability but when simplified that's what it sounds like.
Interesting they are listing archived projects and not OSS-Fuzz. What's the reason for this?
This is the "impact" section on https://github.com/huseyinstif/CVE-2026-2441-PoC:
Arbitrary code execution within the renderer process sandbox Information disclosure — leak V8 heap pointers (ASLR bypass), read renderer memory contents Credential theft — read document.cookie, localStorage, sessionStorage, form input values Session hijacking — steal session tokens, exfiltrate via fetch() / WebSocket / sendBeacon() DOM manipulation — inject phishing forms, modify page content Keylogging — capture all keystrokes via addEventListener('keydown')
I get that css has changed a lot over the years with variables, scopes and adopting things from less/sass/coffee, but people use no-script for the reason because javascript is risky, but what if css can be just as risky... time to also have no-style?
Honestly, pretty excited for the full report since it's either stupid as hell or a multi-step attack chain.
No, we don't. All of the ones we have are heavily leveraged in Chromium or were outright developed at Google for similar projects. 10s of billions are spent to try to get Chromium to not have these vulnerabilities, using those tools. And here we are.
I'll elaborate a bit. Things like sanitizers largely rely on test coverage. Google spends a lot of money on things like fuzzing, but coverage is still a critical requirement. For a massive codebase, gettign proper coverage is obviously really tricky. We'll have to learn more about this vulnerability but you can see how even just that limitation alone is sufficient to explain gaps.
And not in a trivial “this line is traversed” way, you need to actually trigger the error condition at runtime for a sanitizer to see anything. Which is why I always shake my head at claims that go has “amazing thread safety” because it has the race detector (aka tsan). That’s the opposite of thread safety. It is, if anything, an admission to a lack of it.
> 10s of billions are spent to try to get Chromium to not have these vulnerabilities, using those tools. And here we are.
Shouldn't pages run in isolated and sandboxed processes anyway? If that exploit gets you anywhere it would be a failure of multiple layers.
However if you have arbitrary code execution then you can groom the heap with malloc/new to create the layout for a heap overflow->ret2libc or something similar
This is an interesting thought to me (like, how does one create a zero-day that doesn't look intentional?) but the more I think about it, the more I start to believe that this fully is not necessary. There are enough faulty humans and memory unsafe languages in the loop that there will always be a zero-day somewhere, you just need to find it.
(this isn't to say something like the NSA has never created or ordered the creation of a backdoor - I just don't think it would be in the form of an "unintentional" zero-day exploit)
also this seems chromium only so it doesnt impact firefox ?
honestly curious. do you think "based on chrome" means they forked the engine and not just "applied some UI skin"?
The term has long watered-down to mean any vulnerability (since it was always a zero-day at some point before the patch release, I guess is those people's logic? idk). Fear inflation and shoehorning seems to happen to any type of scary/scarier/scariest attack term. Might be easiest not to put too much thought into media headlines containing 0day, hacker, crypto, AI, etc. Recently saw non-R RCEs and supply chain attacks not being about anyone's supply chain copied happily onto HN
Edit: fwiw, I'm not the downvoter
In a security context, it has come to mean days since a mitigation was released. Prior to disclosure or mitigation, all vulnerabilities are "0-day", which may be for weeks, months, or years.
It's not really an inflation of the term, just a shifting of context. "Days since software was released" -> "Days since a mitigation for a given vulnerability was released".
This seems logical since by etymology of zeroday it should apply to the release (=disclosure) of a vuln.