zb3
zb3 on Hacker News
> We review applicants’ proposed uses, security controls and governance practices before granting access.
For-profit corporations shouldn't have this power, this is not democracy.
It does, because one might not use all the features while still paying performance cost.
That's impressive, I wish they published writeups..
At this point I don't understand - why not do this officially? They're already sanctioned to death...
What is the solution implied here? Attackers - whoever they are - already have them, so perhaps it's time we close the patch gap instead.
Is black transparent there? Are they dimmed? Or just additive?
Note that Claude is resistant to these techniques, because Claude would refuse even without those tricks employed.
When I was a kid, hacking meant breaking into others' systems, I'd not believe if you told me that one day we'd use security vulnerabilities to control products we own and paid for..
So you think they will release the full exploit?
Too bad this will be patched instead of allowing the device owner to control their own device.
Of course it's better that they found that before some shady mercenary spyware company, but I'd also want to control my ios device the same way they did in the video, but no, that's not for us.
I didn't dispute that they're delaying source code releases for security patches, I only pointed out that these regulations can't explain why they choose not to publish QPR1/QPR3 while publishing QPR0/QPR2.
> When it is present, WebAuthn attestation tells the site the make and model of the authenticator, identified by its AAGUID, with a certificate chain from the vendor to back it up. It says nothing about your OS, your browser, your extensions, whether your phone is rooted or jailbroken, your firmware version, or even what colour it is.
"Model of the authenticator" could say almost everything about these if the model was let's say "Google Pixel 10". TEE would refuse to sign the attestation if the bootloader was unlocked / AVB didn't verify.
YubiKey attestation is not a problem because the device doesn't work against me in such a way it would require installing custom software on it. And even if YubiKey went crazy, they're not a monopoly.
Situation with smartphones is very much different..
How does that prevent them from releasing 17 QPR1 now given that 17 QPR1 is already released "by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand"?
The second part explicitly addresses this, Pixels getting QPR1 starts the timer.
Apple might do the same, but for $99 annually..
Meanwhile Opus 5.5 didn't even answer my question about reading user memory in a linux die notifier, a question which had nothing to do with security, just low-level system programming..
Oh wait, the author said:
> The attempts with Fable 5.1 and Opus 5.5 were both blocked by Anthropic's cybersecurity safeguards after two prompts.
How unsurprising :)
There's a search engine here
https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/ (see filters).
Not a lot of them unfortunately.. but with current bootloader unlocking situation, only newer motorolas seem to be missing... OnePlus 15 was added (or is in the making)
They don't abuse Google Ads, scams are their casual use case.
Where are the proposals without signing in?
It's claude-shaped science, so I meant Claude logo :)
You mean Huawei? Europeans are ok with that, kernel being encrypted or not.
Yep, they can allow GrapheneOS, right now. So let's pressure them into doing that.
They could easily permit GrapheneOS without compromising on security. Not doing so is either a sign of gross incompetence or plain malice.
But now we have Gemini 4 Argon, and you know, agents (they boast it's so good at that stuff), so customer support should improve soon, RIGHT??
They just want to be the only ones being able to sell the content made by its users to AI companies for training purposes.
Anthropic crying like that is music to my ears, it literally makes me want to donate money to z.ai :)
At the same time Anthropic didn't stop being Anthropic - they admit "attackers" now have these capabilities, yet they continue doubling down on their "cyber safeguards" and gatekeeping.. this is hilarious.
But that bad assumption could make people explain themselves and provide more information than they previously would just to convince the AI to give them the answer. I don't like where this is all going, like you 'll only be able to get things done if you convince the Big Brother..
Except sometimes I explicitly do not want to reveal what my search intent is / explain why I want to search for this. The Google 2006 method gave me some room to do this, but now it feels like I can't do that on my own and I need to talk to Gemini. Horrible experience.
> All new code in this effort uses modern Android code standards and designs. This gives us a codebase that is easier to maintain, test, and easier to extend with new features in the future.
No, this increases the overall complexity of the system. Android will hopefully eventually collapse under its own weight.
Google controls the Android ecosystem (restricts what OEMs can do) and employs various practices to ensure there's no alternative besides Apple (this duopoly suits both of them). Chipmakers essentially focus on ensuring they can sell access to BSPs which meet Google requirements, as there's no real alternative for smartphones. If you're not Apple, these chips are meant to be used with GMS Android, that's the expectation.
If there were alternatives (like on the desktop and for some parts of IoT) it would be more cost-efficient to upstream everything, but with the current situation it's fully up to Google.
When Google wanted them to move all their chip-specific code to modules (GKI), they had to do that. And if someone at Google randomly decided "hey, now you'll upstream this stuff", then guess what? They'd have to follow, it's how this monopoly works.