I recently tried to recover text from 8 frames of an office-shot YouTube video, where only a small, blurry portion of a computer screen was visible. After spending half a day with Astra on it, the conclusion was that it’s not possible to read.
Later that evening, I just paused the YouTube video on my phone, circled the part of the display with Google Lens, and it read the whole thing with pretty good accuracy. It was mindblowing :)
It looks to me like subtle marketing for the doughnut-shaped hardware from Jony Ive that comes next. All these 3D-printed avatars we see at 00:12 are shaped to have the doughnut Dots inside them.
RSA-768 was already factored in 2009.. cheap now. What surprised me is that RSA keys are much weaker than their size looks. You need 2048 bits to get normal safety, and 768 is far below that.
I moved out of the windows world a long time ago. Are virus scanners still a thing? Like, not just a revenue stream, but something you really should run?
I don't think anybody actually installs them on purpose. A lot of systems come with McAfee (Lenovo) or others pre-installed.
Interesting point, I've even has a Lenovo Legion and some ThinkBooks install McAfee autonomously after I installed Windows 11 Pro.
In enterprise environments it's a different story, McAfee and the like have similarly named products for the enterprise which actually do useful things for corporate security (like blocking unauthorized USB devices, blocking unauthorized software, reporting incidents to a central SOC system, etc.)
I do install them. This day only ClamAV I guess. I used (paid for) ESET Linux before they cancelled their Linux consumer line.
On the fence about trying Kaspersky AV Linux. Wouldn't install their suite on Windows though, last I looked at it hooked too many places, causing weird bugs and slowing everything down. Less bad than Comodo, which was able to bork Cygwin, but still.
In home environment: no, because Windows Defender is pretty good now. Some people install other antimalware solutions, but there's no great reason to do it.
In enterprise environment: definitely, for both compliance, management and actual security reasons.
This one is both awesome and scary. We are living in a black mirror episode, where one well-crafted LLM prompt can get you $500k or the ability to hack into 500M websites :)
The market will quickly adjust to the point where spending $50 on tokens will on average give you a vulnerability valued at $50. Maybe $100 to account for your edge in having a better prompt and the risk of prison time you take in selling the exploit
In fact that may well be true today. OP didn't try to sell it to discover the true price the market is willing to pay. And we all know that "somebody paid $$$ for something similar in the past" is no guarantee that somebody else is willing to pay any significant sum for your thing today. If it was, startups would be a lot easier
Click on the "Reset layout" button in the query tool (located in the top right corner), and it will move the "AI Assistant" tab to the right. Now, when you query a table, it will default to the Query tab as always.
I hope this is only for low-risk false positives. Dismissing a critical finding as a false positive should still involve AppSec.
You could improve revert rates while simultaneously introducing more security vulnerabilities.
And the linked "claude-code-security-review" explicitly states in the README
> This action is not hardened against prompt injection attacks
That's a significant limitation for an AI security review control, no?
reply