<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>So I wanted to type up some notes on the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYYZjTx92KU">CGC Wrapup</a>
video, which was excellent. I mean, a part of what you want to do,
while you watch it, is strip out all the parts of the thing that
are about "playing the game". I know Jordan loves CTFs as some
sort of e-sport and also there's a whole community who for
whatever reason plays CTFs instead of playing corewars on helpless
Chinese networks like of yore, but that stuff is 100% distraction
when it comes to the CGC. <br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part2.67588983.BAB7BF32@immunityinc.com" alt=""
height="455" width="873"></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As you can see, the tiny red lines on the right are supposed to
be some combination of "could hack and could secure a service". I
can't find anywhere something that has a simple spreadsheet of
which <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lungetech.com/cgc-corpus/challenges/NRFIN_00080/">samples</a>
(and even which vulns in which samples) were able to be attacked
by which teams. So much of the game was weighted towards
performance characteristics that it's hard to determine the
information you really need from the scores, although the video
goes over some anecdotal examples where RUBEUS and MECHAPHISH were
able to attack particular historically interesting programs. It's
telling that Mayhem won despite being basically off for half the
contest. ;)<br>
</p>
<p>Does anyone have better data on this?</p>
<p>-dave</p>
<p>P.S. Holy cow the visualizations on program execution are next
gen! Worth a close watch just to see them.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>