He had a pretty reliable exploit on the most used browser, pretty sure it he could have gotten more tax free on the black market.
Now, with EDR widely deployed it's likely that the exploit usage ends up being caught sooner than later, but pretty sure some dictatorship intelligence agency would have found all those journalists deep compromise worthwhile...
> pretty sure it he could have gotten more tax free on the black market.
How?
I've been paid by bug bounties (although not that big) and I have no idea how I would find a trustworthy criminal to sell to.
I guess I'd need to find a forum? Unless my opsec is exemplary then I'm risking being exposed. I'd need to vet that the buyer would actually pay me and not just steal it from me. Even if they do pay me, I'd be worried that they'd blackmail me or try to extract something from me. But assuming they're good black-marketeers, I still have to explain to the authorities where this large amount of cash came from.
So how do I go about selling to the black market in a safe way?
Oh, and I don't get to write a blog post about the bug or get my name in front of other researchers and recruiters. That can be worth a huge amount - both in cash and reputation.
Mostly the best market is intelligence agency vendors. As a US citizen, I would only be comfortable selling to US contractors. There are a bunch; if you go to conferences you probably meet the people there (look at the sponsors...).
It won't be tax-free, though; you'd probably get a 1099, but if you're smart could set it up as corp to corp and deduct a bunch of other expenses from it. Part of the sale is signing a bunch of NDAs, etc so you can't then release it to others.
>Mostly the best market is intelligence agency vendors.
That makes me wonder - may be the original bug was really a backdoor created as a result of a deal with an intelligence agency/vendor. So, can it be that Google gets money (or more generally some kind of browny points) for a backdoor, and once backdoor is found - pays the bug bounty. The bug bounty is thus a kind of quality control program :)
Off the cuff, I'd guess that any official documentation would be around the sale of "research" and not "an exploit". Depending how classy the buyer was about it, there might or might not be an offline wink and nudge.
There are companies that specialize in getting grey market bugs in important software, ie browsers and OSes. They are repwat players and have a reputation to actually pay out.
If you need all that spelled out it's probably not a market for you.
You can find some by researching. AIUI most intros are via personal connections. I'd be wary of the potential ethical implications. There is more than money to life.
Just search for vulnerability or 0day acquisition platforms and do some research into the companies. All of them are kinda shady but there are some which only sell to Five Eyes if you want to be “moral”
You can also go through ZDI (owned by Trend Micro), but the payout will be lower. It’s in Trend Micro’s interest so they can get ahead in detections.
Have an established track record of finding high quality bugs and network with people in that space and you'll eventually get introduced to the right people.
I would consider it a deferred tax. You pay iff you are caught by the tax man with interest (and a potential bonus of a tax free holiday in a state sponsored facility). Better arrangements may be available if you are rich enough so you can get experts to arrange your taxes being legally deferred effectively after you died.
It’s another wrinkle GP didn’t get to. If you are paid, how to launder the money? Presumably you’d get a shiesty lawyer to buy you a nail salon ala breaking bad.
I mean you just search on google... Zerodium, Crowdfense, Exodus Intelligence, etc.
Sure, I'd say the "sell it elsewhere" stuff is always a bit overly optimistic but due to the nature of this specific exploit I am pretty sure you could find a buyer offering good compensation.
Does Zerodium even exist anymore? The impression I have is that people seriously selling clientsides weren't going through any firm a typical message board thread would be talking about.
From what I understand, they generally require complete reliable exploits. I don't think they generally buy proofs of concept, or exploits that only work some percent of the time. This specific exploit worked 80% of the time, which I'm not sure is good enough for them.
Yes, maybe the exploit could likely be modified to be more reliable. That's more work though.
Thats what trusted middle men are for, instead of gaining rep among infosec posers on twitter you build rep under your anonymous alias. This is nothing new.
Selling something to the black market doesn't magically make it tax free. It's almost the opposite. The money is going to show up in your auditable accounts sooner or later, so it's best to pay tax on it, but you'll also have to come up with a fake but auditable story of where it came from, meaning you'll have to engage the services of professional money launderers. They will also take a cut. So, it's like paying tax twice.
Getting paid in cryptocurrency isn't necessarily a dodge either because even if you claim you mined it or something, the authorities have got wise to this a while ago IIUC and will expect to see evidence to back that claim up too.
The money itself might not be dirty, couldn’t you just claim something like “I sold a secret, highly valuable algorithm to this guy”? Tax would still need to be paid of course
Immediate follow up questions from the tax man, and then shortly afterwards the police "who is this guy? where is the invoice? what is his phone number?"
No, it doesnt typically work that way at all. The tax man just wants to get paid.
I grew up in an area known for people growing cannabis before it was legal. An enormous amount of taxes got dodged through cash land deals, but tons of people just claimed the income under various categories and no one ever came knocking because of that.
Its usually the other way around. If you caught the Fed's eye, then they might try to get you on tax evasion or something. Although, frankly even that was very rare. There are just a lot of very obvious fish to fry.
>Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.
If you did not commit a crime to receive the money, there is no reason for money laundering (at least in the US). The IRS does not care as long as you claim it. You don't need a fancy story or anything, just claim the income.
Everybody here is coldly evaluating the financial profit comparison. How about being a decent human being, and not enabling hundreds of criminals to hurt millions of people because your net income is potentially better?
People are fixated, across this thread, on a black market of organized criminals buying vulnerabilities, but for the most part criminals aren't the real alternative market buyers for high-end vulnerabilities, and while people on message boards may incline towards viewing IC and LEO agencies as themselves criminal, I think you'll find a pretty substantial fraction of normal people find supplying IC/LEO agencies as more than just decent; praiseworthy, even.
That thorny ethical issue aside, I'm fond of pointing out that the IC's main alternative to CNE intelligence collection is human intelligence, and the cost of HUMINT simply in employee benefits dwarfs any near-term possible cost of exploit enablement packages; 7 figures is a pittance (remember: most major western governments are essentially benefits management organizations with standing armies).
Even given the seemingly vast sums earned by organized crime, government buyers are positioned to decisively outbid crime over the medium term. It's really early days for these markets.
Not commenting about the ic/leo part specifically, but there is a pretty abundant body of work on what "normal" people are willing to do, as long as they find a way to rationalize it away. The banality of evil is well documented.
In that light, what others would do is rarely a reliable indicator that you shouldn’t think twice about your actions, lest you regret later, once the thinking has happened.
I was commenting on your point that a pretty substantial fraction of normal people find some actions decent, and even praiseworthy.
My point is that this fact shouldn’t belong in a discussion about ethics, given how often widely held moral positions have come to be a source of regret.
Yes; this is the one case where there's a liquid market for these kinds of vulnerabilities. The important detail: for these (and only these) bugs, you can sell them multiple times; for instance, firms exist that specialize in selling these bugs and their enablement packages to, say, every law enforcement and intelligence agency in a single country.
First, it's not "black market" vs. "non-black market"; most remunerative sales outside of bounty programs are grey-market --- mostly lawful, but all under the table, largely because they're to agencies that are protective of their sources and methods.
The mechanism grey-market buyers have to protect their interests against over-selling bugs is tranched payments. Sellers make much of their returns from bugs on the back end through "maintenance agreements", which both require the seller to keep e.g. the offsets in their exploits current and reliable against new patch levels of the target, and also serve to cut off payment once the vendor kills the bug.
If you sell to both sides, you quickly kill the back end business from the grey market buyers. If you sell to too many or too sketchy grey market buyers, the bug leaks --- vendors see it exploited "in the wild", capture samples, kill the bug; same outcome: tranched payments stop.
This is one reason it can make sense to take a bounty payment that is substantially smaller than what a bug might be worth on the market: you get certainty of payment. Another reason is that the bounty program will only want POC code (perhaps proof of reliability in addition to just exploitability), while the market will want a complete enablement package, which is a lot of work.
Black hats will not pay you for an exploit that dies quickly once the white hats get your report. White hats will not pay you for an exploit that you fenced to a black hat agency and showed up in the wild.
> White hats will not pay you for an exploit that you fenced to a black hat agency and showed up in the wild.
...come to think of it, how does that work? Aren't the most important exploits to patch the ones being actively used in the wild?
In other words, how do they avoid someone playing both sides? "I found an exploit being used by the LEETH4X0R malware [which was in fact created by the guy I sold this exploit to] to steal people's gmail cookies."
You'd have to find out about LEETH4X0R before other researchers, but of course, you'd have a head start.
Can usually report anonymously so this shouldn't be an issue. If there's no mechanism for that then yeah I'd consider keeping my mouth shut if it doesn't involve me directly (like the body is in my home somehow).
Security services tend to anonymously report security flaws they use after use against any high value target, since they don't want the opponent using those same flaws back at them.
Private sector has the incentive of keeping an exploit open for as long as possible. Several cases with iPhone exploits that were apparently open (and sold) for years.
An exploit that is used is an exploit that will eventually leave traces that an analyst will look at (if used on a corporate PC)... Either you use it very sparingly on HVT or you end up on the EDR radars and some IOC will be made public eventually.
What if people start asking questions where you got the million dollars from? I've never understood how those presumably illegal markets can function with such large sums involved.
Lol. HN the famously "confidently incorrect" forum especially on-coding topics is not my lawyer.
And yeah if you want normal stuff like a house or car you'd need to wash the money. How do I know? Breaking Bad. Which lets be honest is probably for most of us, our only reference point here.
The reason you do money laundering is because the source of the funds is illegal. If the source of the funds is legal, just claim it. There are plenty of occupations that get paid in cash and are expected to report it.
The IRS isn't referring suspicious (whatever that means) tax returns to the authorities. What happens if you are a criminal is that the authorities have there attention on you because you are doing illegal things. One angle of attack for them is your finances. That is why money laundering exists.
Just use your ill gotten gains slowly for your regular living expenses, or a portion of them. Let your legit money stack up. Don't cross contaminate the two. EZPZ very unlikely to get caught.
Why? If you actually exit the sandbox you'll start leaving traces, and eventually you'll slip and be looked at. That's part of the story EDR vendors sell at least.
You can't deny that you are way more likely to burn the exploit using it on a machine under watch than on a machine that is not...
According to Wikipedia, that's 0.012% of their net income. [0]
While I'm being told in the comments that this is not the way to look at it, it means that this is, percentage wise, 50x the amount that Google is paying.
No. More than 80% of Mozilla Corp's income is a yearly payment from Google. [0]
The payment will stop immediately if Google thinks it's no longer needed, or if federal prosecutors (who have determined this payment is illegal) decide the remedy is to stop the payment. [1]
The CEO's job is simple. Say "I think we should take Google's money again this year", and then pocket several million of it. Ca-ching! What are your plans for post-Google-money? Uh uh... AI? Sell out our users to advertisers? [2] It's not looking good.
The Firefox market share continues to dwindle. The board continues to hob-nob with San Francisco socialites and "activists" and use Mozilla as a piggybank to fund their chums. [edit: removed line about Mitchell Baker as she does seem to have finally left]
> Mitchell Baker did not leave the gravy train by stepping down as CEO, she merely moved to a different seat on the gravy train - chair of the Mozilla Foundation
Mitchell has not been a member of the Mozilla Foundation or Mozilla Corporation boards since February 2025.
That's a bad rubric to judge by, in this case. CEO pay is at a historic high, in fact I'm pretty sure the last time the gap in wage between median workers and CEOs was this high was the roaring 20's, which famously went quite well for the economy.
But Chrome is paying more as a percentage of their browser units' income, no?
Virtually all of Mozilla's income comes from the browser (via the Google search agreement). The vast majority of Google's revenue comes from ad revenue on search, YouTube, and Adsense. Not from Chrome directly. So they had less incentive to reward its security, but did so anyway. And they also do some of the best work in the industry, free, for competitors via Project Zero.
People keep saying that. There are two problems with that, namely ① Google's own ads are easy to block using the new API and ② the new API is effective at blocking various evil attacks. If Google wanted to get rid of ad blockers, I'm sure they could come up with an API that does a better job than that.
Personally I believe that the browser is intended to defend against e.g. Facebook's apps. Google wants to make sure that if you buy a new device and it comes with a Facebook app preinstalled, it also comes with a browser. And that the browser isn't controlled by anyone who'd like to disrupt any of Google's many nice income streams.
To the extent that meth is a viable substitute for cold medicine you'll have those prices correlating.
But more to your point: the bounty is more similar to an auction. Once you sell the bug to the software producer the black market has no more use of it, assuming it gets fixed.
Supply is constrained, so competition is on the demand side.
On the drug example demand is constrained, if you're the only buyer. So competition happens on the supply side.
It'd be fun to do a sketch that's a montage of an array of HN armchair quarterbacks rolling up their sleeves and taking short-lived shots at CEO for Mozilla.
Marching into the home office, kicking butt, and pointing at the whiteboard for their favorite pet project:
* Mozilla focusing on privacy
* Mozilla focusing on web standards
* Mozilla focusing on speed
* Mozilla (apparently, here) focusing on maximizing the size of payouts for bug bounties
Inspiring, Rocky-style music plays in the background.
In the foreground, a red line continuously traces slowly downward, with no perceivable relationship to the scenes in the montage.
Chrome has 15-20 times the users that firefox in the blackmarket the bug would sell for similar ratio. Safari might go for more as it has more rich and tech security illiterate users.
disagree. more marketshare does not mean juicier targets, which, in this case, would be tor users. in addition, you don't buy an exploit to use it en masse, that would get it burned really quickly
More market share does in fact impact availability of targets, but in the case of Firefox it's just as much a factor that there are more bugs and exploits floating around.
* Compare income
* Compare market share
* Compare market share normalised by likelihood of attack yielding benefit, in short-- fx users would be power users probably more likely to have other ways to mitigate an attack
* Or basically just compare black market prices which already taken the above 3 into account
Really doesn't tell me piss all, as I'm not privy to their respective overall cash flow. Are you, considering you say it does for you?
Is monetary expenditure on vulnerability payouts really the primary determinent of who's taking security more seriously, by the way? Sounds a bit backwards to me.
Is there somewhere explaining this bug in terms understandable for someone not dabbling in this?
I don't really understand how this works to "escape the sandbox". Normally it's like a website you visit that get access it shouldn't have. But this talk about renderers and native apis make it seem like it's stuff another process on the computer would do?
First you compromise the renderer process via e.g. a bug in the JS engine. But even if you have native code execution in the context of the renderer process, you're still in a sandbox.
The bug in the OP is for the second stage - breaking out of the sandbox.
The referenced `patch.diff` is basically for simulating a compromised renderer.
Yes. Chrome has multi-process architecture, with renderer processes running in a sandbox. They are the ones that deal with untrusted stuff coming from the Internet and so it is safe to assume that they can be compromised (relatively) easily. The puppet master for all those processes is the browser process, and it is Really Bad if you could exploit it. The described bug presumably does it (note how "sandbox escape" was used in one of the comments), but I'm not competent enough to say exactly how. ;)
Edit: just wanted to riff on your analogy. It is relatively simple to crash/shoot down a rocket, but this exploit gets into the control room and could allow the attacker to see where all other rockets are going & maybe redirect/crash them.
Once you're thinking along the lines of "Alright, if I had some order of flags, I could solve that thing over there. If I knew some kind of weights, I could solve that over there. And if I could find a light bulb I could deal with that over there", you're kinda in the mindset of finding an exploitation chain.
It's just that in the security world, it's more about bad memory accesses, confusing programs into doing the right actions with wrong files, file permissions being weird and such.
Sorta, although I wouldn't necessarily call the first exploit "small", it's at least equally important in the overall chain. "Chain" being the more usual metaphor, for this reason.
Modern browsers have multiple processes with different sandbox policies. The renderer process handles untrusted web content and is heavily sandboxed. The browser process does all the other stuff required to interact with your computer (and is generally much less isolated).
the first time I got a bonus that big, $240k, I thought it would be life changing. the gov took $100k in taxes. I paid off my car $20k. then when I really thought about it there wasn’t much I could do.
It was not a down payment on a house in LA/SF/NYC. it was not enough to start a company and hire people. If I’d changed my life style to be like a college student and live with roommates then it might have given me 2-3 years of student lifestyle but I was 34 and not prepared to go back to student lifestyle
To be honest it was super disappointing. Of course getting a $240k bonus is a privilege. My only point was it didn’t change my life like I thought it would.
And, that was 25 years ago. today, even a million ($600k after taxes) in those 3 cities won’t likely change your life. Maybe you could put a down payment on a house or pay for your kids college tho but it not the freedom I thought it would be
225k in 2025 dollars is life changing for anyone in the middle class of income. The reason you were unable to do anything with it is because you were already earning too much.
Depends where you live. Where I'm from $240k would buy you a really nice house with lots of land, and you'd have money left over.
>>won’t likely change your life. Maybe you could put a down payment on a house or pay for your kids college tho but it not the freedom I thought it would be
How is being able to put a down paymenent on a house or being able to send your kids to collage debt-free not life changing?
I can only assume you'd say so if you were able to do either of those things in the first place, so yeah, it doesn't feel life changing. It's like winning a car in a radio lottery when you already had a car - yeah pretty cool, but not life changing.
There's a lot of people who can't even imagine ever being able to put down a deposit on a house or to send their kids to collage debt-free. With an amount of money like that you can go from being trapped in a rent hell forever to actually purchasing your own house. Or you can give your kids the education you want to give them. They are major, life changing impacts. Again, to describe it as "simplifes a thing or two" to me implies that you could do them even without this money in which case yeah, it changes very little.
Property taxes are very high thanks to prop 13. 250k in California is like 30k in states like Texas or Illinois, enough to make it a great year but not life changing.
I guess it perspective and where you are in life plus your location in the world, I would have to pay 50% tax on it so well a down payment could be it but I would still have to affort the house.
I have a hard time seeing it as life changing for me, having a decent paying job (not silicon valley developer scale) in a expensive country. Ofc if I was having a low paying career without that many perspective my outlook might differ.
I dont live a place where you pay for your kids being in college so I cant speak for that part.
Depends on where in the world you are. I wouldn't call $250k life-changing-money anywhere developed.
It's "I can probably stop worrying about money for a while" kind of money, not "life-changing" money. Not a whole lot you can buy for $250k. After taxes, that probably doesn't even buy a house.
Can somebody help me understand why these obviously very stupid takes keep popping up on HN? Is it rich people who genuinely have no idea what anything costs? Is it rich people intentionally being cruel to everybody else? Is it people trying to appear rich by pretending they have no idea what anything costs? Is it a bay area thing, are people just blowing through a literal fortune every year and unaware of their spending problems? Is it children whose ideas about money come from “influencers”?
> Is it rich people intentionally being cruel to everybody else?
If you got a $240,000 bonus in the mid-2000s in tech, that very likely means you were living in one of the tech metros (SF, NYC) and you could expect nearly 50% of that to be paid in taxes (CA/Fed, NY/NYC/Fed). So you take home about $120,000.
It's a windfall of money to be sure. But being in an employment situation where even such a bonus is possible likely means you already have significantly higher costs than the average person. Maybe you'll pay down some student loans and bolster your savings. But this is far from being "rich". High-earners also tend to have high costs of living.
For the simple reason that it didn’t change my life. Before I received it I thought it would. After I received it, paid taxes , etc. My life didn’t change at all.
It’s a fact that my life didn’t change so it wasn’t a life changing amount of money for me.
Maybe it would be life changing for others. tho at least in sf/nyc/la I suspect it wouldn’t for most people. If I had given it to my sister she’d have used it to pay down her mortgage. her life wouldn’t change. she’d have still had a mortgage and her day to day life wouldn’t have changed at all. My nephew could have used it to pay off his student loans. That would be great but again his daily life wouldn’t have changed
tech salaries in the US are high enough that this is approximately 1-3 years of income as a lump sum. more than that, if you got this amount as a bonus you already have stupid money.
of course $140k would be life changing for most people. but OP, and i suspect most of the other commenters, are not in that situation.
In Sweden, assuming that $125k of that disappears in taxes, it’d leave you with 1.2M SEK. There are currently ~650 properties on Hemnet between 1M and 1.25M. I’d suggest maybe this one in Ödeshög at 1.1M SEK? https://www.hemnet.se/bostad/villa-3rum-odeshog-odeshogs-kom... Not the biggest, but it’s reasonably well done up, comes with 2/3rds of an acre of land, is near a main motorway to get to places, and near the shore of the biggest lake in the country. If you want to take a train then it’s 30 minutes drive to the nearest station on the Stockholm-Copenhagen line.
Finding issues in large complex projects is generally easier than smaller projects. More code, more bugs. But its still difficult to find serious issues on the level of a sandbox escape in Chromium just because Google's long-running reward system means lots of people have spent lots of time looking into it, both manually and using automated fuzzer tools.
Back in ye olden days of 2014 I randomly stumbled upon a Chrome issue (wasn't trying to find bugs, was just writing some JavaScript code and noticed a problem) and reported it to Google and they paid me $1,500. Not bad for like half an hour's work to report the issue.
I feel like it's the opposite. In a huge project there's bound to be many weird interactions between components, and it's about picking the important/security relevant ones and finding edge cases. In this case the focus was on the interaction between the renderer process and the broker. That forms a security boundary so it makes sense to focus your efforts there - google will pay for such exploits since they can in theory, when combined with other exploits in the renderer process, lead directly to exploits that can be triggered just by opening a web page. So, yes, chrome is a huge project but the list of security-relevant locations to probe actually isn't actually all that long. That's not to diminish the researchers work, it still takes an insane amount of skill to find these issues.
Finding a problem that deserves a bug bounty reward is a very different beast to just finding quirks.
I read from one security researchers somewhere that professionals wouldn’t find enough bug bounty worthy problems in high enough frequency to pay their bills. So they’ll sometimes treat things like this more as a supplement to promote their CV rather than as a job itself.
Spending a lot of time debugging code. Eventually, the pattern recognizer in your brain will pick out the bugs. The term for this is "code smell".
For example, when I'd review C code I'd look at the str???() function use. They are nearly always infested with bugs, usually either neglecting to add a terminator zero or neglecting to add sufficient storage for the terminating zero.
It is crazy that anytime someone works on application layer and wants to manipulate string, which is a very, very common thing to do when writing application, one has to consider \0 which would be an implementation detail.
Programming is the consideration of implementation details. When you manipulate strings in C you consider the terminating nul byte just like when you manipulate strings in Python you consider how its stores codepoints or when you manipulate strings in Swift you think about grapheme clusters. There is no free lunch. (Though, of course, you can get reduced price lunches based on the choices you make!)
Oh, people tried. Every C programmer tried it. I tried multiple times. They all failed.
Back when I was musing about what D would be like, I happened across some BASIC code. I was drawn to the use of strings, which were so simple in BASIC. I decided that D would be a failure if strings weren't as easy to use as in BASIC.
And D strings turned out to be better than I'd dared hope!
I proposed an enhancement to C to get much of that benefit, but it received zero traction in the C community. Oh well.
I do not think it is obvious or trivial question. I think the problem is mostly that there is no money for enhancing the C ecosystem and educating people about possibilities. The cooperate money goes into random new things.
That questions is kind of the point I want to make. We live in 2025 and C is still an option for new applications, i.e wrong abstraction layer for application level development.
No doubt there are valid reasons to use it, that is just the state of things they are unfortunately.
My problem with "crossplatform" GUIs that run on Linux is that they aren't made to run on Linux desktop, they are made to run on Android, iOS, Windows, macOS, and finally Linux desktop.
All I want is a menubar, a toolbar, a statusbar, and some dialog windows. I don't want fading transitions when I click a tab.
It's crazy that I'm forced to write header files just to have a menubar.
I get the feeling these kind of skills are very rare because they fall in the category "understanding and debugging other people code/mess", while most people prefer to build new things (and often struggle to debug their own work).
It takes a lot a passion and dedication to security and reverse engineering to get there.
By reading and keeping up with the published work in browser exploit development, replicating it yourself, and then finding you have a knack for spotting vulnerabilities in C++ code.
Suppose someone wanted to dive into other projects with the ambition of finding high value bugs. Besides chromium what would you recommend or consider? What would be your thought process for deciding what projects to look into?
The answer to your question is WebKit (because iOS), kernels (XNU, Linux, Windows) etc. In case you are not familiar with the domain I'd start with user-space exploitation and relevant write ups to get my feet wet. You'll find plenty of write ups, blogs etc. so I'll skip those.
Some of the books I generally found interesting are [1],[2], [3]. There's more to that, including fundamental concepts of CS (e.g., compilers and optimization in JITs, OS architecture etc.). I believe also https://p.ost2.fyi/dashboard has some relevant training.
Bugs are "High value" in different ways, you have to find the companies willing to pay highly. Most of the high payers are on bug bounty programs (like hackerone.com) and don't always give you ability to talk about bugs later.
Google is quite unique here, particularly given Chrome is paying easily 10x what Mozilla would for a sandbox escape. Apple is in the middle -- per [1] a "WebContent sandbox escape" would be $50k, but to get $250k on their scale you need to combine that with a kernel bug.
So if you want to optimise for "value", you have to pick the targets that are easier (still not easy, obviously).
Although seeing these bugs fixed and getting rewarded for finding them is great, I still think that Microsoft's idea of virtualising the entire browser process was genius. It also feels better than any "lockdown"-like mode that maybe just disables some JIT engine or two.
Grey market, not black. It's been several months since I've talked to anyone in the space but full-chain reliable quiet Chrome exploit packages were high six figures, with discussions starting about bugs reaching 7 figures imminently, and the people I talked to might have been talking that down (or talking it up).
Again, remember that grey market payouts are tranched, so you could get 3x more than Google would pay, or you could get 0.5x, and for much more work.
Google security team is really good, however sometimes things are controversial because certain bugs gets ignored in MS-way which is famous for not paying/not fixing.
To add to the sibling comment, there are also many different ways of making a living doing this stuff:
* You can find killer clientside bugs where the bounty will cover a year's worth of compensation (bear in mind you'll get maybe 1.5 of these payouts a year on your own if you're good but replacement-level)
* You can find these kinds of bugs and work with brokers to sell them to grey-market buyers along with enablement/implants --- more development work, a little more market risk.
* You can find smaller, easier bugs (serverside, web bugs) that get nothing resembling these kinds of payouts but are much easier to find, and make good money on volume. This is a much more common way of making a living on bounty payments.
Yes. There are plenty of folks who submit to the company I work for who live in regions of the world that are extremely low cost of living/salary (in USD terms) and most BB programs pay out fixed USD rates. It can be very lucrative.
It is unfortunate that there is no web browser in a memory safe language. As I understand, both Chromium and Firefox use C++, although Firefox partly uses Rust. This has put billions of people at risk.
One of the biggest security holes is the JIT engine, rewriting it in Rust or any other language wouldn't make a difference, since it is effectively an inner platform.
I didn’t get anything for my JavaScript recursive reference failure defect report a decade ago, but then it also wasn’t a sev1 security compromise defect either.
"Decent." was the first word that came into my mind. After a second, I realized that 250,000 USD ist basically 0.00022 % of Alphabet's (Google's?) annual net income [0].
A life changing amount of money for an individual, but nothing more than a small blip on Google's charts. Of course, I'm aware of "budgets" and "departments", and that one simply does not move funds between departments. And while my mind is on the verge of "maybe they should have paid more?", the numbers would mean that even 10x the sum would move the percentage by one decimal. It's wild how much money big corporations have.
I highly applaud the researcher for their tremendous amount of skill and dedication.
How much Alphabet makes is almost irrelevant. The incentive here should be for security researchers. As long as there's enough incentive for security researchers to continue to report the bugs they find (which must be balanced against the potential payment a criminal could get if exploiting the bug, which is not directly correlated to the company's income either, at least not necessarily), the payment is appropriate.
To be fair, goog has to pay comparable to other 3rd party brokers, and not necessarily "potential payment by exploiting the bug". Finding an exploit and being able to deploy it for financial gains are two distinct problems, with separate skillsets, risks, etc.
Plus there are some other benefits of disclosing to goog. After you get into VRP you get access to grants & stuff and can basically ask to study a problem and get funded for that effort. Being able to blog about it, pad your experience, etc etc. All while not having to look over your shoulder for 3 letter agencies your whole life :)
While I embrace the downvotes, I disagree. From my pov, the amount of money paid should factor in the anticipated risk for your business. If a privilege escalation means that Google takes a massive hit in Ad Revenue, than this should be factored in.
An exploit like this would be abused by somebody who sets up a malicious website to try to take control over somebody's device or otherwise steal secrets from them like keys for cryptocurrencies. These attacks tend to be targeted. Nobody is using an exploit like this to create an ad blocker or even to do ad fraud.
The only risk to revenue here is reputational, and I think that it is likely that the existence of this bug would be less widely known if the bounty program didn't exist and the bug was sold on the black market.
> the amount of money paid should factor in the anticipated risk for your business. If a privilege escalation means that Google takes a massive hit in Ad Revenue, than this should be factored in.
Given this exploit, that would probably lower the payout. There are absolutely tons more sandbox escapes in Chromium engine right now (here's a fun list of previous ones, none of which cost them ad rev[1]), and they're not adversely affecting Google's ad revenue. No company is pulling ads because Chrome has a vuln.
This wouldn't even be the kind of reputational hit that something like SolarWinds was.
So someone found a way to exploit Chrome. Should Google now cash you out some dividends they got from Ads, YouTube, GCP, Pixel, Android and Waymo so they can really feel that it costs them an arm and a leg?
Suddenly incentives are there to apply as a Chrome developer is more lucrative than CxO position because one can produce bugs for friends to find.
> You make a bunch money too, should you pay $100 for that taco? It's nothing to you.
Looking at my yearly net income, paying 100$ for a single taco in a year would mean that 0.26% of my net income would go into a taco. Paying 0.1$ for a single taco would make it 0.00026%. According to the consensus in this comment section, that would be pretty gracious. Yes, that's where I'm going with this.
//Edit: Thanks at postflopclarity for pointing out my wrong math.
I was wondering why my math wasn't mathing, but was too busy to earn money at the same time. Thanks for pointing it out, fixed! Now my statement makes way more sense.
Yeah, assuming the people working at the taco shop aren't very well off the taco should cost $100 for a software engineer, $80M for Jeffrey Bezos, and $4 for someone down on their luck.
If we wanted, we could make this more efficient by giving out free healthcare and housing to people, proportional to their need, and tax $95 from the software engineer, $80M from Bezos, and $0 from someone down on their luck.
Progressive Tacos does sound better than Progressive taxation, and it would probably work better because rich people dodge taxes all the time, but come on, who doesn't want to eat tacos?
We (software engineers) won't have proper empathy for the poor until we go into an apple store and the price tag on the iPhone is "20% of your net worth".
There’s little relationship between the net income of a company and what is an appropriate bug bounty, especially a company as diversified as alphabet.
Indeed, one of the great tragedies of life is that this happens. Humans cannot survive without water, yet the median water bill is $80, which is about 1% of the median household's income. People make so much money but refuse to pay for something that literally sustains their life. Join me in requiring that every household at least 10x the amount they pay for this precious water. To employees of water companies: Thank you for your service.
Have you also considered how much humans ought to be paying the trees for their Oxygen? I may look into buying some shares in those trees if they are available.
Now, with EDR widely deployed it's likely that the exploit usage ends up being caught sooner than later, but pretty sure some dictatorship intelligence agency would have found all those journalists deep compromise worthwhile...
How?
I've been paid by bug bounties (although not that big) and I have no idea how I would find a trustworthy criminal to sell to.
I guess I'd need to find a forum? Unless my opsec is exemplary then I'm risking being exposed. I'd need to vet that the buyer would actually pay me and not just steal it from me. Even if they do pay me, I'd be worried that they'd blackmail me or try to extract something from me. But assuming they're good black-marketeers, I still have to explain to the authorities where this large amount of cash came from.
So how do I go about selling to the black market in a safe way?
Oh, and I don't get to write a blog post about the bug or get my name in front of other researchers and recruiters. That can be worth a huge amount - both in cash and reputation.
It won't be tax-free, though; you'd probably get a 1099, but if you're smart could set it up as corp to corp and deduct a bunch of other expenses from it. Part of the sale is signing a bunch of NDAs, etc so you can't then release it to others.
That makes me wonder - may be the original bug was really a backdoor created as a result of a deal with an intelligence agency/vendor. So, can it be that Google gets money (or more generally some kind of browny points) for a backdoor, and once backdoor is found - pays the bug bounty. The bug bounty is thus a kind of quality control program :)
There are companies that specialize in getting grey market bugs in important software, ie browsers and OSes. They are repwat players and have a reputation to actually pay out.
How much of a premium are they paying to make it worthwhile?
You can find some by researching. AIUI most intros are via personal connections. I'd be wary of the potential ethical implications. There is more than money to life.
You can also go through ZDI (owned by Trend Micro), but the payout will be lower. It’s in Trend Micro’s interest so they can get ahead in detections.
Sure, I'd say the "sell it elsewhere" stuff is always a bit overly optimistic but due to the nature of this specific exploit I am pretty sure you could find a buyer offering good compensation.
Yes, maybe the exploit could likely be modified to be more reliable. That's more work though.
Or just sell it to the israelis.
Not going to happen.
Getting paid in cryptocurrency isn't necessarily a dodge either because even if you claim you mined it or something, the authorities have got wise to this a while ago IIUC and will expect to see evidence to back that claim up too.
> but you'll also have to come up with a fake but auditable story of where it came from
And now you did.
I grew up in an area known for people growing cannabis before it was legal. An enormous amount of taxes got dodged through cash land deals, but tons of people just claimed the income under various categories and no one ever came knocking because of that.
Its usually the other way around. If you caught the Fed's eye, then they might try to get you on tax evasion or something. Although, frankly even that was very rare. There are just a lot of very obvious fish to fry.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p525#en_US_2024_publink1000...
>Illegal activities.
>Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.
They also have every incentive to make sure you're guilty enough to not go blab to the authorities later, or sell it to someone else.
And since you're trying to be anonymous in this, you aren't going to be getting a regular tax receipt either.
That thorny ethical issue aside, I'm fond of pointing out that the IC's main alternative to CNE intelligence collection is human intelligence, and the cost of HUMINT simply in employee benefits dwarfs any near-term possible cost of exploit enablement packages; 7 figures is a pittance (remember: most major western governments are essentially benefits management organizations with standing armies).
Even given the seemingly vast sums earned by organized crime, government buyers are positioned to decisively outbid crime over the medium term. It's really early days for these markets.
In that light, what others would do is rarely a reliable indicator that you shouldn’t think twice about your actions, lest you regret later, once the thinking has happened.
My point is that this fact shouldn’t belong in a discussion about ethics, given how often widely held moral positions have come to be a source of regret.
The mechanism grey-market buyers have to protect their interests against over-selling bugs is tranched payments. Sellers make much of their returns from bugs on the back end through "maintenance agreements", which both require the seller to keep e.g. the offsets in their exploits current and reliable against new patch levels of the target, and also serve to cut off payment once the vendor kills the bug.
If you sell to both sides, you quickly kill the back end business from the grey market buyers. If you sell to too many or too sketchy grey market buyers, the bug leaks --- vendors see it exploited "in the wild", capture samples, kill the bug; same outcome: tranched payments stop.
This is one reason it can make sense to take a bounty payment that is substantially smaller than what a bug might be worth on the market: you get certainty of payment. Another reason is that the bounty program will only want POC code (perhaps proof of reliability in addition to just exploitability), while the market will want a complete enablement package, which is a lot of work.
...come to think of it, how does that work? Aren't the most important exploits to patch the ones being actively used in the wild?
In other words, how do they avoid someone playing both sides? "I found an exploit being used by the LEETH4X0R malware [which was in fact created by the guy I sold this exploit to] to steal people's gmail cookies."
You'd have to find out about LEETH4X0R before other researchers, but of course, you'd have a head start.
Yes they will.
If you are the murderer, there will be.
Honestly I’d be more worried about crossing the blackhats.
Security services tend to anonymously report security flaws they use after use against any high value target, since they don't want the opponent using those same flaws back at them.
You'll think of something. If you can hack one system, you can hack another.
$250k fully legally and with recognition is probably a good incentive not to bother. White hats have their privileges.
Your hookers and blow dealers won't report you to the taxman.
And yeah if you want normal stuff like a house or car you'd need to wash the money. How do I know? Breaking Bad. Which lets be honest is probably for most of us, our only reference point here.
The IRS isn't referring suspicious (whatever that means) tax returns to the authorities. What happens if you are a criminal is that the authorities have there attention on you because you are doing illegal things. One angle of attack for them is your finances. That is why money laundering exists.
[1] https://www.elizabethhoney.com/45--47-stella-street.html
lol
You can't deny that you are way more likely to burn the exploit using it on a machine under watch than on a machine that is not...
[1] https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/chrome-friends/574...
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/client-bug-bounty/
Sounds fine to me.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
//Edit: Had a typo in my percentage. 20.000 of 157.000.000 is, indeed, 0.012% - that makes it 50x the amount of Google's percentage.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24132168
The payment will stop immediately if Google thinks it's no longer needed, or if federal prosecutors (who have determined this payment is illegal) decide the remedy is to stop the payment. [1]
The CEO's job is simple. Say "I think we should take Google's money again this year", and then pocket several million of it. Ca-ching! What are your plans for post-Google-money? Uh uh... AI? Sell out our users to advertisers? [2] It's not looking good.
The Firefox market share continues to dwindle. The board continues to hob-nob with San Francisco socialites and "activists" and use Mozilla as a piggybank to fund their chums. [edit: removed line about Mitchell Baker as she does seem to have finally left]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-05/google-lo...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909
Mitchell has not been a member of the Mozilla Foundation or Mozilla Corporation boards since February 2025.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growt...
Virtually all of Mozilla's income comes from the browser (via the Google search agreement). The vast majority of Google's revenue comes from ad revenue on search, YouTube, and Adsense. Not from Chrome directly. So they had less incentive to reward its security, but did so anyway. And they also do some of the best work in the industry, free, for competitors via Project Zero.
https://textslashplain.com/2024/10/13/content-blocking-in-ma... shows a ten-line ad blocker that blocks Google's ads, https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 is a list of polite email messages from people who'd like to have elevated access to browsers.
uBlock Origin Lite blocks YouTube ads just fine.
Do you really think Google wouldn't do anything about as blockers? Especially now that no ads is one of the selling points of YouTube Premium?
Personally I believe that the browser is intended to defend against e.g. Facebook's apps. Google wants to make sure that if you buy a new device and it comes with a Facebook app preinstalled, it also comes with a browser. And that the browser isn't controlled by anyone who'd like to disrupt any of Google's many nice income streams.
Surely a bug on Chrome is worth more than a bug on Firefox.
But more to your point: the bounty is more similar to an auction. Once you sell the bug to the software producer the black market has no more use of it, assuming it gets fixed.
Supply is constrained, so competition is on the demand side.
On the drug example demand is constrained, if you're the only buyer. So competition happens on the supply side.
That is why you see equivalent skill levels being paid differently in big tech compared to other places.
And why you see millions in salaries at some big techs Ai hiring.
It's really no secret that higher revenue means higher potential pay/more devs...
How much of the Mozilla foundation's income goes into product development nowadays?
Marching into the home office, kicking butt, and pointing at the whiteboard for their favorite pet project:
* Mozilla focusing on privacy
* Mozilla focusing on web standards
* Mozilla focusing on speed
* Mozilla (apparently, here) focusing on maximizing the size of payouts for bug bounties
Inspiring, Rocky-style music plays in the background.
In the foreground, a red line continuously traces slowly downward, with no perceivable relationship to the scenes in the montage.
* Or basically just compare black market prices which already taken the above 3 into account
Won't complain about that.
Is monetary expenditure on vulnerability payouts really the primary determinent of who's taking security more seriously, by the way? Sounds a bit backwards to me.
Yup, clearly Mozilla.
$250k is loose change for Google.
Hello Defcon!
I don't really understand how this works to "escape the sandbox". Normally it's like a website you visit that get access it shouldn't have. But this talk about renderers and native apis make it seem like it's stuff another process on the computer would do?
The bug in the OP is for the second stage - breaking out of the sandbox.
The referenced `patch.diff` is basically for simulating a compromised renderer.
Edit: just wanted to riff on your analogy. It is relatively simple to crash/shoot down a rocket, but this exploit gets into the control room and could allow the attacker to see where all other rockets are going & maybe redirect/crash them.
Once you're thinking along the lines of "Alright, if I had some order of flags, I could solve that thing over there. If I knew some kind of weights, I could solve that over there. And if I could find a light bulb I could deal with that over there", you're kinda in the mindset of finding an exploitation chain.
It's just that in the security world, it's more about bad memory accesses, confusing programs into doing the right actions with wrong files, file permissions being weird and such.
The patch.diff part is hard to understand. Surely if you have a compromised renderer, you have effectively full access to the machine already?
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/412578726#comment26
It was not a down payment on a house in LA/SF/NYC. it was not enough to start a company and hire people. If I’d changed my life style to be like a college student and live with roommates then it might have given me 2-3 years of student lifestyle but I was 34 and not prepared to go back to student lifestyle
To be honest it was super disappointing. Of course getting a $240k bonus is a privilege. My only point was it didn’t change my life like I thought it would.
And, that was 25 years ago. today, even a million ($600k after taxes) in those 3 cities won’t likely change your life. Maybe you could put a down payment on a house or pay for your kids college tho but it not the freedom I thought it would be
>>won’t likely change your life. Maybe you could put a down payment on a house or pay for your kids college tho but it not the freedom I thought it would be
How is being able to put a down paymenent on a house or being able to send your kids to collage debt-free not life changing?
Because neither of those are going to change your daily life that much? It simplifies a thing or two, but neither of those things are life-changing.
There's a lot of people who can't even imagine ever being able to put down a deposit on a house or to send their kids to collage debt-free. With an amount of money like that you can go from being trapped in a rent hell forever to actually purchasing your own house. Or you can give your kids the education you want to give them. They are major, life changing impacts. Again, to describe it as "simplifes a thing or two" to me implies that you could do them even without this money in which case yeah, it changes very little.
I have a hard time seeing it as life changing for me, having a decent paying job (not silicon valley developer scale) in a expensive country. Ofc if I was having a low paying career without that many perspective my outlook might differ.
I dont live a place where you pay for your kids being in college so I cant speak for that part.
It is in Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia...
It's "I can probably stop worrying about money for a while" kind of money, not "life-changing" money. Not a whole lot you can buy for $250k. After taxes, that probably doesn't even buy a house.
If you got a $240,000 bonus in the mid-2000s in tech, that very likely means you were living in one of the tech metros (SF, NYC) and you could expect nearly 50% of that to be paid in taxes (CA/Fed, NY/NYC/Fed). So you take home about $120,000.
It's a windfall of money to be sure. But being in an employment situation where even such a bonus is possible likely means you already have significantly higher costs than the average person. Maybe you'll pay down some student loans and bolster your savings. But this is far from being "rich". High-earners also tend to have high costs of living.
It’s a fact that my life didn’t change so it wasn’t a life changing amount of money for me.
Maybe it would be life changing for others. tho at least in sf/nyc/la I suspect it wouldn’t for most people. If I had given it to my sister she’d have used it to pay down her mortgage. her life wouldn’t change. she’d have still had a mortgage and her day to day life wouldn’t have changed at all. My nephew could have used it to pay off his student loans. That would be great but again his daily life wouldn’t have changed
of course $140k would be life changing for most people. but OP, and i suspect most of the other commenters, are not in that situation.
Back in ye olden days of 2014 I randomly stumbled upon a Chrome issue (wasn't trying to find bugs, was just writing some JavaScript code and noticed a problem) and reported it to Google and they paid me $1,500. Not bad for like half an hour's work to report the issue.
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40078754
I read from one security researchers somewhere that professionals wouldn’t find enough bug bounty worthy problems in high enough frequency to pay their bills. So they’ll sometimes treat things like this more as a supplement to promote their CV rather than as a job itself.
Lot of companies will sit for months just to acknowledge your submission.
For example, when I'd review C code I'd look at the str???() function use. They are nearly always infested with bugs, usually either neglecting to add a terminator zero or neglecting to add sufficient storage for the terminating zero.
How can that language still be so popular?
It's also an easy language to write a compiler for. At one point I counted over 30 C compilers available for DOS.
Back when I was musing about what D would be like, I happened across some BASIC code. I was drawn to the use of strings, which were so simple in BASIC. I decided that D would be a failure if strings weren't as easy to use as in BASIC.
And D strings turned out to be better than I'd dared hope!
I proposed an enhancement to C to get much of that benefit, but it received zero traction in the C community. Oh well.
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/C-biggest-mistake.html
No doubt there are valid reasons to use it, that is just the state of things they are unfortunately.
Edit: I guess I should've at least asked myself if the question was rhetorical.
All I want is a menubar, a toolbar, a statusbar, and some dialog windows. I don't want fading transitions when I click a tab.
It's crazy that I'm forced to write header files just to have a menubar.
Zig 1.0 can't come soon enough.
Or... https://quickshell.org/ ?
It takes a lot a passion and dedication to security and reverse engineering to get there.
I'd guess the curriculum is half reverse engineering and half reading any write-ups to see the attacks and areas of attack for inspiration
[1] https://nostarch.com/zero-day
[2] https://nostarch.com/hacking2.htm
[3] https://ia801309.us.archive.org/26/items/Wiley.The.Shellcode...
Google is quite unique here, particularly given Chrome is paying easily 10x what Mozilla would for a sandbox escape. Apple is in the middle -- per [1] a "WebContent sandbox escape" would be $50k, but to get $250k on their scale you need to combine that with a kernel bug.
So if you want to optimise for "value", you have to pick the targets that are easier (still not easy, obviously).
[1]: https://security.apple.com/bounty/categories/
I'd really like that on both Linux and macOS.
Again, remember that grey market payouts are tranched, so you could get 3x more than Google would pay, or you could get 0.5x, and for much more work.
Google security team is really good, however sometimes things are controversial because certain bugs gets ignored in MS-way which is famous for not paying/not fixing.
* You can find killer clientside bugs where the bounty will cover a year's worth of compensation (bear in mind you'll get maybe 1.5 of these payouts a year on your own if you're good but replacement-level)
* You can find these kinds of bugs and work with brokers to sell them to grey-market buyers along with enablement/implants --- more development work, a little more market risk.
* You can find smaller, easier bugs (serverside, web bugs) that get nothing resembling these kinds of payouts but are much easier to find, and make good money on volume. This is a much more common way of making a living on bounty payments.
A life changing amount of money for an individual, but nothing more than a small blip on Google's charts. Of course, I'm aware of "budgets" and "departments", and that one simply does not move funds between departments. And while my mind is on the verge of "maybe they should have paid more?", the numbers would mean that even 10x the sum would move the percentage by one decimal. It's wild how much money big corporations have.
I highly applaud the researcher for their tremendous amount of skill and dedication.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/1lh0pl4/google_is_n...
Plus there are some other benefits of disclosing to goog. After you get into VRP you get access to grants & stuff and can basically ask to study a problem and get funded for that effort. Being able to blog about it, pad your experience, etc etc. All while not having to look over your shoulder for 3 letter agencies your whole life :)
You know there’s ongoing and plausible efforts by at least 3 organizations to conquer the Earth, right?
While I embrace the downvotes, I disagree. From my pov, the amount of money paid should factor in the anticipated risk for your business. If a privilege escalation means that Google takes a massive hit in Ad Revenue, than this should be factored in.
An exploit like this would be abused by somebody who sets up a malicious website to try to take control over somebody's device or otherwise steal secrets from them like keys for cryptocurrencies. These attacks tend to be targeted. Nobody is using an exploit like this to create an ad blocker or even to do ad fraud.
The only risk to revenue here is reputational, and I think that it is likely that the existence of this bug would be less widely known if the bounty program didn't exist and the bug was sold on the black market.
Given this exploit, that would probably lower the payout. There are absolutely tons more sandbox escapes in Chromium engine right now (here's a fun list of previous ones, none of which cost them ad rev[1]), and they're not adversely affecting Google's ad revenue. No company is pulling ads because Chrome has a vuln.
This wouldn't even be the kind of reputational hit that something like SolarWinds was.
[1]: https://github.com/allpaca/chrome-sbx-db
Suddenly incentives are there to apply as a Chrome developer is more lucrative than CxO position because one can produce bugs for friends to find.
You make a bunch money too, should you pay $100 for that taco? It's nothing to you.
Looking at my yearly net income, paying 100$ for a single taco in a year would mean that 0.26% of my net income would go into a taco. Paying 0.1$ for a single taco would make it 0.00026%. According to the consensus in this comment section, that would be pretty gracious. Yes, that's where I'm going with this.
//Edit: Thanks at postflopclarity for pointing out my wrong math.
> It's wild how much money big corporations have. ?
If we wanted, we could make this more efficient by giving out free healthcare and housing to people, proportional to their need, and tax $95 from the software engineer, $80M from Bezos, and $0 from someone down on their luck.
Progressive Tacos does sound better than Progressive taxation, and it would probably work better because rich people dodge taxes all the time, but come on, who doesn't want to eat tacos?
We (software engineers) won't have proper empathy for the poor until we go into an apple store and the price tag on the iPhone is "20% of your net worth".
Anything less is an incitement to allow exploits to be used in the wild.
There’s little relationship between the net income of a company and what is an appropriate bug bounty, especially a company as diversified as alphabet.