Top Story
Another day, another browser vulnerability that turns into a PR ping-pong between two research outfits and a few security newsrooms. SquareX claims to have found a way to abuse a hidden Comet API to execute local commands, while Perplexity insists the whole thing is fake or at least misrepresented. It reads like a vendor briefing dressed up as research and then published as if the world will finally patch itself into oblivion. Spoiler alert: this is not the breach that will finally wake CISOs from their slumber, nor is it the excuse vendors will use to sell you more “game-changing” API guards and paid attestations.
What we actually have is a classic cycle: a flashy claim about a secret API, a pushback from a rival group, and a calendar full of press releases from vendors who want you to believe this is the tipping point that will finally force adoption of their shiny control plane. The only thing more tired than this storyline is the chorus of “trust us, we patched it” from vendors who still can’t figure out basic software supply chain hygiene. Pour yourself a glass of whiskey, pretend you’re listening to a CISO explaining risk in terms of budget and time, and you’ll get the gist: enthusiasm without evidence, hype without reproducibility, and a security posture that looks good on social media but not in production.
The article argues about a hidden API that allegedly allows command execution, but the true takeaway isn’t a new vulnerability class. It’s a mirror held up to an industry that loves dramatic headlines more than verified risk. If you’re a reader who has ignored the last ten warnings about insecure APIs, you are exactly who this story is tailored for. It’s not about the technical nuance of Comet, it’s about whether your organization treats every “new” vulnerability as a fire drill or as a reminder to actually fix the basics you’ve ignored since last quarter’s security quarterly. In other words, this is a test of your posture, not a blueprint for a new badge of honor for your security team.
In the end, the real discipline is skepticism plus discipline. Do you demand reproducible proof, complete with steps to reproduce, risk scoring, and a clear path to remediation? Or do you let the headline-drama push your roadmap back another quarter while you chase the latest vendor briefing instead of patching what actually matters in your environment? Until we see credible proof and a measured path to mitigation, this remains a sideshow. A depressing reminder that, in security, the bar is set lower by vendors than most years of experience would justify. And yes, there will be whiskey involved in the post-mortem, because sometimes the only honest conclusion is that humans still outpace the bug fixes.
Read the original article here: Read the original
