I'm tickled at the idea of asking antirez [1] if he's ever written a PoC for a CVE.
replyThis happens over and over in these discussions. It doesn't matter who you're citing or who's talking. People are terrified and are reacting to news reflexively.
replyHi! Loved your recent post about the new era of computer security, thanks.
replyThank you! Glad you liked it.
replyPersonally, I’m tired of exaggerated claims and hype peddlers.
replyEdit: Frankly, accusing perceived opponents of being too afraid to see the truth is poor argumentative practice, and practically never true.
I actually like when that happens. Like when people "correct" me about how reddit works. I appreciate that we still focus on the content and not who is saying it.
replyThat's not really what happened on this thread. Someone said something sensible and banal about vulnerability research, then someone else said do-you-even-lift-bro, and got shown up.
replyThat's true in this particular case, but I was talking more about the general case.
replySure he wrote a port scanner that obscures the IP address of the scanner, but does he know anything about security? /s
replyOh, and he wrote Redis. No biggie.
That's both wholly different branches than finding software bugs
replyFirstly I have a long past in computer security, so: yes, I used to write exploits. Second, the vulnerability verification does not need being able to exploit, but triggering an ASAN assert. With memory corruption that's very simple often times and enough to verify the bug is real.
replyI'm not GP, but I've written multiple PoCs for vulns. I agree with GP. Finding a vuln is often very hard. Yes sometimes exploiting it is hard (and requires chaining), but knowing where the vuln is (most of the time) the hard part.
replyNote the exploit Claude wrote for the blind SQL injection found in ghost - in the same talk.
replyoh no. Antirez doesn't know anything about C, CVE's, networking, the linux kernel. Wonder where that leaves most of us.
reply