You know you’re getting into zealot territory when people are arguing semantics over the headline pointing to a zero authentication admin access vulnerability CVE that affects a double-digit percentage of users.
replyDoes it really? Digging up the data from example the 135k instances in the open reeks like bullshit, I would suspect several other claims are exaggerated as well.
reply> Digging up the data from example the 135k instances in the open reeks like bullshit, I would suspect several other claims are exaggerated as well.
replyDo you so stringently examine most CVEs? I’ll bet you don’t. Are you a big fan of this project? I’ll bet you are. Do you have any actual data to counter what they said or do you just sort of generally not vibe with it? If so, now would be a great time to break it out while this is still fresh. If not…
They are pointing out the data provided does not appear to be real. There is no credible link to this 135k number. They do not need to provide a number, as one does not appear to exist.
replyWell the post was removed so that’s not very promising on their part.
replyToday I learned nobody agrees on what the word "probably" means.
replyYa I thought it meant “more probable than not” ie 50+%.
replyOtherwise I would say “you may have been hacked” not “you probably have been hacked”.
That is what it means. Unless you're losing an argument on the internet and you need a word to hide behind. ;)
replyYou're probably right.
replyHere's a statement that's about 3x as true then:
replyIf you're running OpenClaw, you probably didn't get hacked in the last week.