upvote

points

by IshKebab15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ethanzh14 hours ago|
next
[-]
I don't think they're trying to spin this as Anthropic being compromised, but I do think they're correct in saying this is Anthropic's problem to deal with now, regardless of the fact that they're not responsible for the root cause.
reply
upvoteby junofan14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It’s like if 5,000 people bought iPhones at Costco and they all exploded, and Apple says “well we didn’t sell them.” Sure, but maybe not the perfect thing to communicate immediately.
reply
upvoteby true_religion14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No, it's like 5,000 people bought something that Costco called the iPhone but really was EvilPhone Max+ by EvilCorp. Costco should be on the hook for accepting the phones without properly checking they weren't bombs in disguise.

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.

reply
upvoteby plaguuuuuu13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's a lot more like a bunch of people bought Cisco networking equipment and then the NSA secretly intercepted shipments, implanted surveillance backdoors, then resealed the boxes and sent them on to unsuspecting overseas targets.
reply
upvoteby fn-mote11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If there are no seals at all then it’s hard to argue this is the correct analogy.

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.

reply
upvoteby kji13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This is misleading; a better analogy would be if someone swapped out all iPhones in the store with fake ones.
reply
upvoteby quietbritishjim12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In this situation, Cursor did not make any reasonable attempts to check this extension really was from anthropic.

So for the analogy, it really is like Costco didn't make any attempt to check they were buying actual iPhones.

reply
upvoteby yardstick10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
A better analogy would be to say Anthropic must register their domain with every TLD available, to prevent someone cybersquatting it. I see Claude.org.nz is available.
reply
upvoteby weego14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's literally not like that at all.

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.

reply
upvoteby daynthelife12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Legal responsibility, no. But apple's reputation would nevertheless be on the line. Is this situation I would expect Apple to pursue legal action against Costco for reputational damage, as I would Anthropic Cursor.
reply
upvoteby d0mine14 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If you decided to use an umbrella to protect something during a hurricane and umbrella breaks and your thing is ruined. Whose fault is that?

Distributing signed artifacts is a solved problem (until NP=P is cracked at least).

reply
upvoteby abofh14 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That is not what was written; what was described was anthropic losing control over their cursor account - perhaps a key compromise, developer laptop compromise, or a fault in cursor, but of the three, the language suggests the first two.
reply
upvoteby NewsaHackO12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This is wrong.
reply
upvoteby tehlike15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
+1.
reply
upvoteby baxtr14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
HN has a dedicated upvote functionality.
reply
upvoteby theteapot14 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I think he's saying (erroneously) Anthropic owns Cursor. Reading this claude.com page [1] hawking Cursor you could be forgiven for forming that impression.

[1]: https://claude.com/marketplace/agents-products/cursor

reply