Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulgb | Hacker News Reader

Sure, my surprise is more that the demand exists at $100k, not that the supply isn't cheaper.

I get why that's surprising but I think it's important to beat that surprise out of your brain, because $100k is a rounding error for any state-level actor --- not just the US, but, like, Seychelles as well. If you have a problem that can be solved with a Pidgin exploit, it's a problem you'd fall over rushing to write a simple $100k check for.

What's so perplexing to me is why the pay grades for people in the military are so low. Take Michael Flynn, for example, the O-9 pay for a three star general is lower than what a senior software developer makes. Surely if we're spending $100k a pop for these random exploits it makes sense to spend more at the top of the military to make sure we're buying the right ones.

Also, I don't really see any possible way out of this cyberarms market. There are too many degrees of freedom to really secure anything completely and I'm continually surprised that our governments allow the sale of these munitions to non-allied foreign governments. If someone puts up a $2m dollar bounty for Tesla do we just accept this even if it means physical harm?

I think we don’t want those at the top of the military to be motivated by money.

You're missing the value of military pensions and healthcare when you speak about O9 compensation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com