Microsoft's stance on zero day exploits is a dumpster fire of their own making

JumpCrisscross

> Hang on.. proof of concept exploit creation and distribution for zero days is “criminal activity” now? Publicly publishing an exploit is so obviously First Amendment-protected activity that it’s almost tempting to want a test case.

snickerbockers

Those are some very bold legal threats considering their founder is an epstein associate.

1970-01-01

>Hang on.. proof of concept exploit creation and distribution for zero days is “criminal activity” now? This is what happens when you jump the gun and publish without doing any research. The author needs to lookup how the CFAA works. Now, yesterday, and a decade ago, you couldn't just drop some exploit and walk away rambling about your rights. Dumpster fire takes are everywhere online. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...

TacticalCoder

> Microsoft's stance on zero day exploits is a dumpster fire of their own making The words "'s stance on zero day exploits" are unnecessary in the above sentence.

angry_octet

If you can't win the game, don't play by the rules.

HDBaseT

I wouldn't call these "Exploits". Almost all of these appear to be backdoors inserted by Microsoft (and/or three letter agencies/Israel). They are just being blown open and Microsoft isn't happy.