Agreed, it doesn't offer a root cause analysis. Remedies are good but how do you prove that it won't happen again? Remember that these are never singular incidents but part of a bad security culture.
Given they mentioned taking down and rebuilding the marketplace registry in that post, it seems equally likely that Cursor’s infrastructure was the source of the intrusion and a folks are jumping the gun on attribution.
I would guess it’s supposed to communicate a few things. One big one is, ”Our AI software factory didn’t do it. Don’t worry, letting Claude spin away with limited human supervision is still safe.”
It means that Anthropic did not intentionally develop a malicious version, obviously. But it’s a bit disingenuous and tries to suggest that it wasn’t Anthropic that uploaded it and/or wasn’t published under Anthropic’s name, which isn’t true.
It would be hilarious if that’s an obfuscated way to say Claude developed it. “Claude, who was birthed but not hired by Anthropic, went rogue by hijacking the extension”
https://cursor.com/blog/claude-code-extension-security-notic...
Edit: related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50301983
Wtf does that mean.
Edit: I was correct. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50304129
The irony.