5 ms·

> people were already diffing kernel commits and figuring out which ones were security fixes With skill, and usually not consistently and systematically. With

> people were already diffing kernel commits and figuring out which ones were security fixes With skill, and usually not consistently and systematically. With AI, anyone can do this to any software. > not sure shorter embargoes really help Why 90 days versus 2 years? The author is arguing the factors that set that balance have shifted, given the frequency of simultaneous discovery. The embargo window isn’t an actual window, just an illusion, if the exploit is going to be found by several people outside the embargo anyway. > cheaper exploit generation probably makes coordinated disclosure more important I agree. But it also makes it less viable. If script kiddies can find and exploit zero days, the capacity to co-ordinate breaks down. There was always a guild ethic that drove white-hate (EDIT: hat) culture. If the guild is broken, the ethic has nothing to stand on.

gritspants 6mo ago
I'm here for white-hate culture. You should, you should know better.
Hizonner 6mo ago
> With skill, and usually not consistently and systematically. How do you know? If the people who like to crow about vulnerabilities aren't doing it, it doesn't mean that the people who are actually in a position to exploit them systematically and effectively aren't doing it. Those embargoes have always been dangerous, because they create a false sense of security. But, as you point out... > With AI, anyone can do this to any software. Yep. Even if it hadn't been true before, it's clear that now you just have to assume that everybody relevant will immediately recognize the security impact of any patch that gets published. That includes both bugs fixed and bugs introduced. ... and as the AI gets better, you're going to have to assume that you don't even have to publish a patch. Or source code. Within way less time than it's going to take people to admit it and adjust, any vulnerability in any software available for inspection is going to be instant public knowledge. Or at least public among anybody who matters.
- ragall 6mo ago
  > How do you know? We know because we could see the effects of the average rate of vulnerabilities discovery and exploitation, and it's definitely going up very fast. Until recently, vulnerabilities were relatively hard to find, and finding them was done by a very restricted group of people world-wide, which made them quite valuable. Not any more.
  - awesome_dude 6mo ago
    That's correlation, not causation. It could equally be argued that the AI slop that's being produced makes for a lot more vulnerabilities being shipped. The bigger target makes for the easier discovery.
    - ragall 6mo ago
      > That's correlation, not causation. Pragmatically, correlation *is* evidence of causation in favour of the best explanation, until somebody finds a better explanation. > It could equally be argued that the AI slop that's being produced makes for a lot more vulnerabilities being shipped. This is also true, and does not exclude the other, because for the moment the vast majority of production software in the world (and therefore the bulk of enticing targets) was written before AI. If LLM software will become prevalent in commercial setups, then LLM-generated code will eventually become the majority of targets.
      - awesome_dude 6mo ago
        > Pragmatically, correlation is evidence of causation in favour of the best explanation, until somebody finds a better explanation. Uh, no. Correlation is only ever one thing - cause for investigation. Everything based on correlation alone is speculation. You can speculate all you like, I have zero issue with that, but that's best prefaced with "I guess" edit: Science captures this perfectly, and people misunderstand this so fundamentally that there is a massive debate where people who think they are "pro science" argue this so badly with theists that they completely hoist themselves with their own petard. Science uses the term "theory" because all of our understanding is based on "available data" - and science biggest contribution to humanity is that it accepts that the current/leading THEORY can and will be retracted if there is compelling data discovered that demonstrates a falsehood. So - because I know this is coming - yes science is willing to accept some correlation - BUT it's labelled "theory" or "statistically significant" because science is clear that if other data arises then that idea will need to be revisited.
awesome_dude 6mo ago
> people were already diffing kernel commits and figuring out which ones were security fixes With skill, and usually not consistently and systematically. With AI, anyone can do this to any software. I would like to see actual evidence of this, not.. vibes I mean, this reeks of "Anyone is a Principal developer now" when the truth is there is still work to do.
totetsu 6mo ago
“White-Hat”

gritspants 6mo ago

I'm here for white-hate culture. You should, you should know better.

Hizonner 6mo ago

> With skill, and usually not consistently and systematically. How do you know? If the people who like to crow about vulnerabilities aren't doing it, it doesn't mean that the people who are actually in a position to exploit them systematically and effectively aren't doing it. Those embargoes have always been dangerous, because they create a false sense of security. But, as you point out... > With AI, anyone can do this to any software. Yep. Even if it hadn't been true before, it's clear that now you just have to assume that everybody relevant will immediately recognize the security impact of any patch that gets published. That includes both bugs fixed and bugs introduced. ... and as the AI gets better, you're going to have to assume that you don't even have to publish a patch. Or source code. Within way less time than it's going to take people to admit it and adjust, any vulnerability in any software available for inspection is going to be instant public knowledge. Or at least public among anybody who matters.

ragall 6mo ago
> How do you know? We know because we could see the effects of the average rate of vulnerabilities discovery and exploitation, and it's definitely going up very fast. Until recently, vulnerabilities were relatively hard to find, and finding them was done by a very restricted group of people world-wide, which made them quite valuable. Not any more.
- awesome_dude 6mo ago
  That's correlation, not causation. It could equally be argued that the AI slop that's being produced makes for a lot more vulnerabilities being shipped. The bigger target makes for the easier discovery.
  - ragall 6mo ago
    > That's correlation, not causation. Pragmatically, correlation *is* evidence of causation in favour of the best explanation, until somebody finds a better explanation. > It could equally be argued that the AI slop that's being produced makes for a lot more vulnerabilities being shipped. This is also true, and does not exclude the other, because for the moment the vast majority of production software in the world (and therefore the bulk of enticing targets) was written before AI. If LLM software will become prevalent in commercial setups, then LLM-generated code will eventually become the majority of targets.
    - awesome_dude 6mo ago
      > Pragmatically, correlation is evidence of causation in favour of the best explanation, until somebody finds a better explanation. Uh, no. Correlation is only ever one thing - cause for investigation. Everything based on correlation alone is speculation. You can speculate all you like, I have zero issue with that, but that's best prefaced with "I guess" edit: Science captures this perfectly, and people misunderstand this so fundamentally that there is a massive debate where people who think they are "pro science" argue this so badly with theists that they completely hoist themselves with their own petard. Science uses the term "theory" because all of our understanding is based on "available data" - and science biggest contribution to humanity is that it accepts that the current/leading THEORY can and will be retracted if there is compelling data discovered that demonstrates a falsehood. So - because I know this is coming - yes science is willing to accept some correlation - BUT it's labelled "theory" or "statistically significant" because science is clear that if other data arises then that idea will need to be revisited.

awesome_dude 6mo ago

> people were already diffing kernel commits and figuring out which ones were security fixes With skill, and usually not consistently and systematically. With AI, anyone can do this to any software. I would like to see actual evidence of this, not.. vibes I mean, this reeks of "Anyone is a Principal developer now" when the truth is there is still work to do.

totetsu 6mo ago

“White-Hat”