Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs

Re:Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs by jlgaddis on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:29AM (#16598638)

Google (Project Zero) has found and published plenty of vulnerabilities in Microsoft products.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs by sangnoir on Friday March 16, 2018 @01:37PM (#16602375)

(Part of) HN got real salty after Google auto-published after the 90-day disclosure deadline expired,but before MS had a patch out. I wonder what the reaction would be if Project Zero adopted a 24-hour disclosure...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs by exikyut on Saturday March 17, 2018 @08:49AM (#16606727)

What was this on?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs by sangnoir on Saturday March 17, 2018 @01:21PM (#16607975)

I believe it was for this remotely exploitable IE/Edge[1] bug.

1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/high-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs by ksec on Friday March 16, 2018 @02:43AM (#16599035)

There is a difference in helping and destroying competition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Interesting Call with CTS-Labs by cthalupa on Friday March 16, 2018 @10:15AM (#16600773)

If it's factually correct it wouldn't be libel.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal somewhere in the world, but in the US, publishing factual information you have not signed away the right to publish via an NDA or similar contract is usually legal. I don't know that motive is ever involved as part of the test of determining whether or not you are allowed to write something.

I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

[ Parent | on HN ]