Comment by shakna
6 hours ago
The reading that chainguard have said that before when it was not the case.
Why would you implicitly take them at their word?
6 hours ago
The reading that chainguard have said that before when it was not the case.
Why would you implicitly take them at their word?
sure, i'm happy to recant my rather tepid defense of chainguard in the case that what was said upthread was a blatant fabrication. i'm even open to being convinced that it was.
as it stands though, what i replied to wasn't a useful addition to the discussion. it could easily become so by either being made contingent upon the possibility of that being a lie, or being bundled with an assertion like yours that chainguard is not to be taken at their word. doing neither and simply responding as if a causally opposite statement had been made is just a non sequitur.
I don't think we have to not-believe Chainguard. To me, the problem is more that "in the wild" is a somewhat airy statement that can only be taken to strictly mean that one found it somewhere on a computer that is connected to other computers. This is almost a non-statement, as airgaps are the exception rather than the rule.
Even then, it implies more than it says. It's often used to suggest the exploit came from a remote system one does not directly control and was deployed, successfully, against another system one does not directly control. But even that does not necessarily have to be true, as people can use it, without any bad faith and not trying to twist the phrase, in cases where only one of those conditions hold, e.g. against a system one does directly control where the exploit attempt was unsuccessful.