5 ms·
In some sense, I wonder if non-open-source is "safer" since LLMs can't mass scan the code for exploits.
by elija 5mo ago
In some sense, I wonder if non-open-source is "safer" since LLMs can't mass scan the code for exploits.
- overboard2 5mo agoMaybe for a while, but there's nothing stopping LLMs from examining disassembler output.
- LtdJorge 5mo agoSecurity through obscurity
- nly 5mo agoThat's significantly more challenging for an LLM (and a human)
- lsaferite 5mo agoI would caution against thinking it's difficult for an LLM. I've used them in raw data file analysis and they are frequently shockingly good at pulling structures and meaning out of seemingly random data. Disassembled binaries already are structured, so pulling code flow out of that is easier. Mixing that with existing disassembly and inspection tooling and an LLM has what is needed to fast track this kind of vulnerability research. Point being, an LLM with the proper tools can potentially follow code flow from disassembled binaries way easier than a human.
- panzi 5mo agoI forgot who it was, but someone on YouTube said LLMs already work hooked up to gidra. If true it's only a matter of time once they find similar things in e.g. Windows. I'll wait half a year to a year (think of embargo) and if there still isn't such work for Windows I'll conclude that LLMs have a problem disassembling binaries.
- IcePic 5mo agoIf they don't get scanned, then they also don't get fixed, so if they have the same amount of holes, they will stay vulnerable for longer.