vavkamil

> Security gets its own automated review too. ... You either fix it or close the thread with a short reason, which is how you clear a false positive.

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?

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.

The parent company is Gen Digital now, and its product line is: Norton / Avast / AVG / Avira / CCleaner

I have no idea why anyone would install and use their browser.

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 :)

You leaked `./frontend/.env.local` & `./backend/.env` inside `ShadowBroker_v0.1.zip` in the first commit.