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

[grarpamp]

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.
.