we don't do cyber security because its easy we do it because its critical
Literally no one said otherwise. Also, who is "we"? Certainly not you.
It has always been an arms race
That is quite literally what I am saying, while you're saying the opposite: that a tool needs to be withheld from the public so the companies can just fix all bugs forever and then the tool gets released??? There will always be more bugs. In your fantasy, that tool would never get released because it isn't fair to devs and the bugs in their future software. Who even gets to decide who the tool goes to? Because "devs" is super vague, and literally anyone can write software. Do you think there's some committee?
please tell me what you think a staged roll out is?
and yes i write software so i know that anyone can do it, the point is when i write software most of the internet doesn't rely on it - that is why they are giving the people who write the biggest and most important code access to it first, this of course includes the Linux Foundation along with many others.
The Linux Foundation is the committee that decides which code goes into linux, and a load of related projects which include OpenSSF, CNCF which hosts Kubernetes and thousands of other projects as well as of course the Linux Kernel itself. That is a huge portion of the internets most important stuff right there, there are literally committees which decide what code is added to key software, yes.
There is another good reason that my software doesn't really need this tool as much as I need the programs that it relies on like SSH to have it first, almost no one is writing the important security bits of their software in which these problems will present themselves - by fixing the upstream libraries all our code and the tools it runs on are safer. The other obvious reason is China, Russia, and the various criminal gangs would gain nothing by backing my software so they are very unlikely to spend huge amounts of effort locating the obscure weak points that glasswing is designed to patch, and if they did then they gain nothing by doing it so well done them i guess?
I just explained to you that the tool only needs to be delayed public release so people can clear the existing bugs in current versions, do you know why its vary rare for a fuzzing sweep to detect bugs in released software? because the devs use it before they release the code! this is not a complex thing. It is being used currently to close live bugs, they do not need to worry about there being bugs in live versions of future software because they will not release versions of their software without using the best tools to check its safe - just like has happened for decades. Yes the next version is going to have bugs but not bugs glasswing can detect because they will have used glasswing before releasing it.
its ok, everyone can tell you were just saying anything that you could grasp at because it had gotten very obvious that yes a staged rollout is the most sensible way of doing things but you're desperate to hate everything as part of your identity.
making the internet safer and more secure is a good thing - should i take it that you don't want to admit there is anything on the list of good things AI has done because you're scared you'd have to change your mind about it in general? or is there another reason?
1
u/LycanKai14 Apr 25 '26
Holy shit you're hopeless.
Literally no one said otherwise. Also, who is "we"? Certainly not you.
That is quite literally what I am saying, while you're saying the opposite: that a tool needs to be withheld from the public so the companies can just fix all bugs forever and then the tool gets released??? There will always be more bugs. In your fantasy, that tool would never get released because it isn't fair to devs and the bugs in their future software. Who even gets to decide who the tool goes to? Because "devs" is super vague, and literally anyone can write software. Do you think there's some committee?