Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sure, but my core argument is that there really aren't that many vulnerabilities that how powerful impacts on stock prices.

If the markets are essentially a random function, and any given stock a random walk, and the influence you wield is marginal, then you're taking a dangerous bet when you spend money to buy puts. Even if you can predictably harm the price of a stock ceteris paribus, you could easily lose money if your timing sucks and you try to employ your scheme when some macro event (or just a company announcement, or any other instants in the random walk of a stock) sends the stock more-than-marginally upwards.

I am not here to question whether Justine Bone can pull this particular scheme off. She picked a perfect target: a product in the medical industry, which is heavily regulated and whose vendors are punished harshly for product recalls, which was in the process of closing an acquisition by another medical industry giant.

My point is that Bone's win here is highly situational. That is great for Justine! I have nothing bad to say about her evil scheme. I'm just saying it's unlikely to be the future of vuln research.



Maybe we can bundle a bunch of shitty vulnerabilities into a CDO and call them good vulnerabilities.


I guess this begs the question of how many times you really need a perfect candidate (such as in this case) if you are confident in nailing the timing and can get leverage. Doesn't seem like you need a ton of these to potentially make off like a bandit. Of course those are big assumptions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: