this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
44 points (100.0% liked)

cybersecurity

6371 readers
37 users here now

An umbrella community for all things cybersecurity / infosec. News, research, questions, are all welcome!

Community Rules

Enjoy!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is how you create people like Nightmare Eclipse.

These people are going out of their way to responsibly disclose vulnerabilites to the bug bounty programs and being treated poorly as a result. Granted, AMD technically didn't have to pay since it was a MITM attack, but they could have at least handled the whole interaction better.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And simply paid they guy out of appreciation.

I generally support the model we've had for bBug disclosure - it's about preventing zero days - which protects the users of these products.

But for AMD stuff now, go ahead and sell your discoveries, let the zero-days ruin AMDs marketing.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

$10k is nothing to AMD. The middle-management bean counters making these decisions are actively harming their company's (and user's security.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

The flaw of not using HTTPS for the downloads is so basic it's shocking they didn't have internal tooling to raise this before it was shipped. I'm not familiar with AMD's bug bounty policy but they should have at least paid $1337 to the researcher for raising this to them.

[–] WPSteam@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Nightmare Eclipse 2.0 incoming. 10K for such a thing is absolutely nothing for companies like AMD. Why promise rewards if at the end, you don't intend to pay? This has been a growing trend in the bug bounty space. Many times a bug is marked as duplicate and is fixed secretly. Other times, they're straightaway rejected..