OK but the same vulnerability exists if short URLs weren't used -- in that case the link source would link directly to the now-hijacked domain. So why does Google have to care about this?
Is it because they're worried that the domain name goo.gl in the link implies a Google endorsement? Seems like they should have thought of that before launching the service in the first place?
Still, the frequency of actual abuse must be low and going down over time (due to the data set being read-only since 2019 and actual traffic to these links surely decreasing as time goes on)...
The lack of concurrent access support in the official HDF5 library (the only implementation with full format support) can be a major drawback. There is ongoing work on that front [1] though it's unclear when it will land.
> Research shows that 95% of the permissions granted to users aren't used which creates huge problems and is a reason for spending millions in security tools.
It'd potentially cost millions more to recover from a GPT-4 disaster.
