- Cursor needs to add signing if they want to claim something was "made" by another party.
- Anthropic needs to stamp out any provider from using said, "Made by Anthropic" until they start adding signing to their process. Trademark law is useful here.
For example - what guarantee do I have with something like: " This publisher has verified ownership of cursor.com" - when I'm looking at the WSL extension. Are there any guarantees it's not been replaced with some other extension?
Always has been because there is so far zero liability for anything someone programs and distributes commercially. That's the single root cause. If not that software wouldn't be in general such major shit show. What we have is the result of being allowed to throw out even the most toxic shit out without any consequences if it causes damage, no mater how large the damage is. Software companies caused so far over the decades likely hundreds of billions, or even a few trillion damages in sum, yet nobody responsible ever got the bill. It's wild west—since now over 60 years. This has to stop finally!
Let's see where things will move as soon as we have regular product liability for software:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum...
Just a few days left! Looking forward.
This is going to cause some major argument between the EU and the US, maybe even a trade war. Trouble is already underway:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-lawmakers-urge-t...
Despite that I also think that this is the right and long overdue move on the EU side. We need to break the basic pattern that nobody cares as long as the responsible effectively never get the bill when they mess up.
Software is "Unsafe at Any Speed" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed ] to bring a striking analogy — even we have since about 60 years the tech to build software which provably (in the mathematical sense) matches its specification. Still what you have on the market is utter garbage, and instead of getting better it gets currently actually worse with lowering the garbage quality level even more with "AI" slop. That EU legislation could become the escape hatch; that's why I'm looking forward.
edit: VSCode has a verified marker for publishers but I don't know how that works or if Cursor does the same.
They don’t do organization verification, but they do verify where code comes from. You may be sure that packages are built by alpine, which made sure that the dist files comes from the sources that the maintainers added, and the latter ensure that the sources are correct. In truth, it’s a very small circle of trust.
we automatically block extensions and require that extensions must be approved, but this is a tedious process.
Stop trying to make blockchain happen, it's not going to happen.
Does Cursor have some process that just scrapes Microsoft’s extension catalog and lists them in their own? If that’s hostile works then it’s broken and needs to be fixed.
Well, duh. From what I can tell, that’s literally the hack. A bad actor shipped an extension on the Cursor marketplace that wasn’t made by Anthropic.
One thing at a time. Please just answer this one question. I am just some dude, and I would love to chat about this.
Apple would be 100% right to say "they're not our phone, we didn't make them, the branding was a lie."
Of course if Cursor actually has a direct connection with Anthropic, and Anthropic lost control of their keys... it's a different story and their employee is just obfuscating up there.
And there was no interception. At the very strongest, the bad guys convinced Cisco to ship the stuff, and Cisco is saying it’s not their responsibility.
They definitely shipped something they didn’t build or check.
So for the analogy, it really is like Costco didn't make any attempt to check they were buying actual iPhones.
If Costco made iPhones under license from Apple outside of the Apple supply chain and they all exploded, while the Apple name is involved they have no direct liability or responsibility.
Distributing signed artifacts is a solved problem (until NP=P is cracked at least).
But from the consumer's side it is very much an expectation and if you find yourself in the situation above it's on you to make it very clear that such extensions and third party tools are unofficial.
In this particular case I think it's fair to say that Anthropic really dropped the ball on signaling that this was an unofficial third party tool.
1. We specifically being library and tool producers that are noticeably overrepresented on this forum.
Had the tool been up longer than the 11 hours the malware was live? If not, then why would Anthropic try to get it marked as unofficial, as opposed to take it down?
Or are you saying that every author and publisher should request Cursor to mark their extensions on the Cursor vsx pass-through as unofficial?