Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher. I'd be surprised if it's above 20K$. Bug bounties rewards are usually criminally low; doubly so when you consider the efforts usually involved in not only finding serious vulns, but demonstrating a reliable way to exploit them.
I think a big part of "criminally low" is that you'll make much more money selling it on the black market than getting the bounty.
Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
31–40 of 242 posts
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher. I'd be surprised if it's above 20K$. Bug bounties rewards are usually criminally low; doubly so when you consider the efforts usually involved in not only finding serious vulns, but demonstrating a reliable way to exploit them.
I think a big part of "criminally low" is that you'll make much more money selling it on the black market than getting the bounty.
Even revealing enough details, but not everything, about the flaw to convince a potential buyer would be detrimental to the seller, as the level of details required to convince would likely massively simplify the work of the buyer should they decide to try and find the flaw themselves instead of buying. And I imagine much of those potential buyers would be state actors or organized criminal groups, both of which do have researchers in house.
The way this trust issue is (mostly) solved in drugs DNM is through the platform itself acting as a escrow agent; but I suspect such a thing would not work as well with selling vulnerabilities, because the volume is much lower, for one thing (preventing a high enough volume for reputation building); the financial amounts generally higher, for another.
The real money to be made as a criminal alternative, I think, would be to exploit the flaw yourself on real life targets. For example to drop ransomware payloads; these days ransomware groups even offer franchises - they'll take, say, 15% of the ransom cut and provide assistance with laundering/exploiting the target/etc; and claim your infection in the name of their group.
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#33"Use after free in CSS" is a funny description to see.
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but lets keeping downplaying use-after-free as something not worth eliminating in 21st century systems languages.
I love rust but honestly I am more scared about supply chain attacks through cargo than memory corruption bugs. The reason being that supply chain attacks are probably way cheaper to pull off than finding these bugs
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quoted directly from NIST, there's many other browsers and non-browsers that use chromium
It was intended as a joke reference to the 2004 Kerry / Bush debate. It's not a coincidence that Google would leave off an ad-blocking variant of Chrome.
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#36I wonder if this was found with LLM assistance, if yes, with which one and is it a one-off or does it mark a start of a new era (I assume it does).
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#37Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher. I'd be surprised if it's above 20K$. Bug bounties rewards are usually criminally low; doubly so when you consider the efforts usually involved in not only finding serious vulns, but demonstrating a reliable way to exploit them.
The bounty could be very high. Last year one bug’s reporter was rewarded $250k. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44861106
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically Firefox is not affected ?
It's pretty hard to have an accidental a use after free in the FireFox CSS engine because it is mostly safe Rust. It's possible, but very unlikely.
Re: Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild
#40Isn't this a wrongly editorialized title - "Reported by Shaheen Fazim on 2026-02-11" so more like 7-day.
It refers to your many days software is available for, with zero implying it is not yet out so you couldn't have installed a new version and that's what makes it a risky bug The term has long watered-down to mean any vulnerability (since it was always a zero-day at some point before the patch release, I guess is those people's logic? idk). Fear inflation and shoehorning seems to happen to any type of scary/scarier/sc…
In a security context, it has come to mean days since a mitigation was released. Prior to disclosure or mitigation, all vulnerabilities are "0-day", which may be for weeks, months, or years.
It's not really an inflation of the term, just a shifting of context. "Days since software was released" -> "Days since a mitigation for a given vulnerability was released".