Claude Opus wrote a Chrome exploit for $2,283

localhoster•about 3 hours ago

> "A week of back and forth, 2.3 billion tokens, $2,283 in API costs, and about ~20 hours of me unsticking it from dead ends. It popped calc."

Corrent me if I'm wrong, I'm not a security researcher, but 20 hours, a week of work, 2283$ spent and over 2 trillion tokens, is not very 10x-ing as we were promised. Especially if you take into account that the guy is at least half capable for this take.

I dunno

0xy•37 minutes ago

Chrome exploits (obviously that can be used to compromise people) go for $1,000,000 on the black market so anything cheaper than that to generate is impressive.

pingou•about 4 hours ago

I know most people here hate that, but I think this makes a much stronger case for security by obscurity (not releasing the source code) in these changing times.

Of course security by obscurity by itself is by no mean sufficient.

whynotmaybe•4 minutes ago

How?

In the 90's most software was closed source but cracks/trainer were always available.

Even for Rayman that had multiple (26?) cd-check during the game.

Security is mainly slowing the attacker because there's a maximum amount of stuff a human can do in 24hours. But now if you can simulate thousands of human attacking a system in different ways, it will crack.

Just like many stores have lock on their doors and, insurance if someone breaks the lock.

I'm guessing data security insurance will become a huge market in the years to come.

iugtmkbdfil834•4 minutes ago

I think part of the concern is that it turns into truly unmaintainable arms that might evolve in some unpredictable ways with potential branches like:

- a lot of open source goes closed source to increase security - open source is effectively forced to use LLM to keep up

I am not really arguing against it, because I understand the arguments on both ends and I am not sure what a good solution here is.

RadiozRadioz•about 3 hours ago

This is assuming that project owners and good actors won't also be using LLM tools to protect open code.

Open does not mean vulnerable, open simply means it's a more obvious cat-and-mouse game.

Claude Opus wrote a Chrome exploit for $2,283

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (6 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews