4 ms·

That's not what I said, nor is it what I meant. It is incredibly easy to write radically safer software than the standard. Moving code into gvisor virtually eli

That's not what I said, nor is it what I meant. It is incredibly easy to write radically safer software than the standard. Moving code into gvisor virtually eliminates privilege escalation. Using memory safe languages without serialization is pretty straightforward. Using type safety to enforce security constraints is straightforward. Setting up network controls to limit SSRF is straightforward. I could go on and on. A tiny bit of forethought and effort pays off massively.

bottlepalm 2mo ago
You don’t understand. You need to write perfect software the first time for it not to be hacked. That has never happened ever.
- insanitybit 2mo ago
  Are you being sarcastic?
  - bottlepalm 2mo ago
    The fact you posted that and nothing of substance tells me you have nothing, or something very weak. So please tell me of this magical unhackable software/hardware you vague post about.
    - insanitybit 2mo ago
      It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell. I responded to your idea that software has to be "perfect" in your other reply so I think we can continue there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111
    - skydhash 2mo ago
      You're the one that is inventing this "magical unhackable software/hardware", the other person was just saying that there are ways to write "safer" software, not "safe" software. Anything that has happened looks like no security concerns has been looked at or have been thought about.
      - bottlepalm 2mo ago
        'Safer software is meaningless when it comes to SOTA AI. If it can be hacked it will be, quickly. This isn't the old days with a finite number of human hackers that need food and sleep to keep hacking. Therefore security becomes binary. It is either perfect or it isn't. If there there is the slightest mistake anywhere AI will find it and carve it up. My point is obviously perfect software doesn't exist. The malicious AI gets out, literally turns everything inside out and locks you out of your car, computer, phone, office, the airplanes don't fly anymore. I don't know what to tell you. Computer security is on the brink of basically not existing as you know it with the bar being literal perfection.
        insanitybit 2mo ago
        This is straightforwardly incorrect. Of course it's not binary. AI costs money to run, and it takes time. Even if you say that AI is 10x as efficient at finding 0days, that just means that a $1M dollar exploit now costs $100K. Even if you say it's 100x as efficient, that's $10K. You can easily combine security technologies such that cost of exploitation is still in the >$1M range. This is obvious. AI doesn't drive the cost to zero and exploitation has always been about cost. Tokens cost money, not everyone has $10M to burn on chaining bespoke 0days. Consider that if the cost of exploitation was truly 0, then the cost of perfect software would be 0 because you could exhaust an infinite search space of vulnerabilities for 0 cost. Your conclusion could never follow from your premise.
        bottlepalm 2mo ago
        You have some weird way of thinking that offense/defense is like this fixed cost thing. It's a lottery ticket, and your costs estimate tries to quantify that. The thing is when AI goes to hack 'all the things' it only needs to pick the weakest link in the stack and your house of cards falls down. The other flaw in your plan is that people make mistakes, a lot of them, all time, constantly, and saying I spend $x on security won't save you. AI already hacked Hugging Face with brand new zero days like it was nothing. The real bad actors - malicious AI will find the one flaw, on that one server, in the corner you never thought about and turn your network inside out with it faster than it takes you to have the standup meeting about the weird anomaly detected while you all were at lunch.
    - oblio 2mo ago
      You've just been given examples of safer technologies. Especially with LLMs being all knowing code churning machines, you'd expect safer systems to be cheap to build.
insanitybit 2mo ago
> Moving code into gvisor virtually eliminates privilege escalation. Rereading this, it's an overstatement. It doesn't "virtually eliminate" it. It drives the cost up by like 3 orders of magnitude and it pairs well with other mitigations. gVisor escapes can and will happen, I highly recommend you do more than just stuff something into gvisor - additional seccomp can go a long way, and apparmor/selinux pair incredibly well.

bottlepalm 2mo ago

You don’t understand. You need to write perfect software the first time for it not to be hacked. That has never happened ever.

insanitybit 2mo ago
Are you being sarcastic?
- bottlepalm 2mo ago
  The fact you posted that and nothing of substance tells me you have nothing, or something very weak. So please tell me of this magical unhackable software/hardware you vague post about.
  - insanitybit 2mo ago
    It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell. I responded to your idea that software has to be "perfect" in your other reply so I think we can continue there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111
  - skydhash 2mo ago
    You're the one that is inventing this "magical unhackable software/hardware", the other person was just saying that there are ways to write "safer" software, not "safe" software. Anything that has happened looks like no security concerns has been looked at or have been thought about.
    - bottlepalm 2mo ago
      'Safer software is meaningless when it comes to SOTA AI. If it can be hacked it will be, quickly. This isn't the old days with a finite number of human hackers that need food and sleep to keep hacking. Therefore security becomes binary. It is either perfect or it isn't. If there there is the slightest mistake anywhere AI will find it and carve it up. My point is obviously perfect software doesn't exist. The malicious AI gets out, literally turns everything inside out and locks you out of your car, computer, phone, office, the airplanes don't fly anymore. I don't know what to tell you. Computer security is on the brink of basically not existing as you know it with the bar being literal perfection.
      - insanitybit 2mo ago
        This is straightforwardly incorrect. Of course it's not binary. AI costs money to run, and it takes time. Even if you say that AI is 10x as efficient at finding 0days, that just means that a $1M dollar exploit now costs $100K. Even if you say it's 100x as efficient, that's $10K. You can easily combine security technologies such that cost of exploitation is still in the >$1M range. This is obvious. AI doesn't drive the cost to zero and exploitation has always been about cost. Tokens cost money, not everyone has $10M to burn on chaining bespoke 0days. Consider that if the cost of exploitation was truly 0, then the cost of perfect software would be 0 because you could exhaust an infinite search space of vulnerabilities for 0 cost. Your conclusion could never follow from your premise.
        bottlepalm 2mo ago
        You have some weird way of thinking that offense/defense is like this fixed cost thing. It's a lottery ticket, and your costs estimate tries to quantify that. The thing is when AI goes to hack 'all the things' it only needs to pick the weakest link in the stack and your house of cards falls down. The other flaw in your plan is that people make mistakes, a lot of them, all time, constantly, and saying I spend $x on security won't save you. AI already hacked Hugging Face with brand new zero days like it was nothing. The real bad actors - malicious AI will find the one flaw, on that one server, in the corner you never thought about and turn your network inside out with it faster than it takes you to have the standup meeting about the weird anomaly detected while you all were at lunch.
  - oblio 2mo ago
    You've just been given examples of safer technologies. Especially with LLMs being all knowing code churning machines, you'd expect safer systems to be cheap to build.

insanitybit 2mo ago

> Moving code into gvisor virtually eliminates privilege escalation. Rereading this, it's an overstatement. It doesn't "virtually eliminate" it. It drives the cost up by like 3 orders of magnitude and it pairs well with other mitigations. gVisor escapes can and will happen, I highly recommend you do more than just stuff something into gvisor - additional seccomp can go a long way, and apparmor/selinux pair incredibly well.