Google: 'We'll pay $100K if you can hack a Chromebook remotely'

[Sean Lynch]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:41 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/17/16, Rayzer <Rayzer at riseup.net> wrote:
> >> exclusively for attacks that achieve a persistent compromise on a
> >> Chromebook in 'guest mode'
> >
> >
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-well-pay-100k-if-you-can-hack-a-chromebook-remotely/
>
> Doesn't this thing use Intel's AMT processor and NIC?
> Intel's probably protected their source code access processes
> with more than $100k against any researcher, same with Google,
> but as we've just seen NSA already FISA'd / moled both their source.
> So what's the difference? Or the point?
>
> If Google wants to pull a stunt, it should open it's own code
> and start paying out along that new bug discovery asymptote.
>
> Regardless of whether you sell software / hardware or not...
> "We're closed, and awesome" really doesn't cut it anymore
> when the bad guys have the source everyone else thought
> was closed.
>

Most of ChromeOS is open source. The BIOS, AIUI, is Coreboot. Most of what
isn't open source can't legally be open sourced because it's other people's
IP, like the codecs, Flash, etc. If you care, go compile and run
ChromiumOS.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 1818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160318/b842cbd0/attachment-0002.txt>