3 ms·

>Unlikely to be a hack, more likely to be a misconfiguration or update sent incorrectly. Are these materially different? Assuming that there wasn't a literal c

by TZubiri 2mo ago

>Unlikely to be a hack, more likely to be a misconfiguration or update sent incorrectly. Are these materially different? Assuming that there wasn't a literal command to turn off all freezers, from an organizational, non criminal perspective, to the organization the damage will be the same, the root cause will be a bug (whether exploited by chance or malice), and the fix will be the same(fixing the bug).

gavinsyancey 2mo ago
> Are these materially different? A hack implies an adversary, and intentional targeting.
- TZubiri 2mo ago
  But is it materially different? Or is it a difference in quantitative increase of likelihood of the exploit? The thesis "everything hackable" will be hacked, and with the advent of hacking LLMs, the boundary between criminal hacking and civil hacking is being blurred, it's no longer attributable to a criminal intent, hacking commands are just something that happens through no criminal intent. Practically, the hackers, whether human or syntehtic, are a catalyst, they accelerate the rate at which a bug that causes damage will manifest, and perhaps the magnitude of the manifestation, but the essence of the negative manifestation of that bug is the same. Whether it was triggered by a solar ray flipbit or by a rogue LLM or by a russian hacker, the essence of the issue is the same.
  - namenotrequired 2mo ago
    Yes? “one of us made a mistake” vs “someone is attacking us” is a difference that people care about.
    - croon 2mo ago
      Not only care about; a mistake is unlikely to be repeated, a motivated attack is very likely to be attempted again.
      - lostlogin 2mo ago
        > a mistake is unlikely to be repeated If it was a mistake, it happened at many facilities. That seems like a repeated mistake to me.
        croon 2mo ago
        That's not what logically follows from my statement. It's a conclusion you can make if you believe my premises are false though. It could also be a third possibility of a bug/issue affecting many of these specific batches.

by TZubiri 2mo ago

gavinsyancey 2mo ago

> Are these materially different? A hack implies an adversary, and intentional targeting.

TZubiri 2mo ago
But is it materially different? Or is it a difference in quantitative increase of likelihood of the exploit? The thesis "everything hackable" will be hacked, and with the advent of hacking LLMs, the boundary between criminal hacking and civil hacking is being blurred, it's no longer attributable to a criminal intent, hacking commands are just something that happens through no criminal intent. Practically, the hackers, whether human or syntehtic, are a catalyst, they accelerate the rate at which a bug that causes damage will manifest, and perhaps the magnitude of the manifestation, but the essence of the negative manifestation of that bug is the same. Whether it was triggered by a solar ray flipbit or by a rogue LLM or by a russian hacker, the essence of the issue is the same.
- namenotrequired 2mo ago
  Yes? “one of us made a mistake” vs “someone is attacking us” is a difference that people care about.
  - croon 2mo ago
    Not only care about; a mistake is unlikely to be repeated, a motivated attack is very likely to be attempted again.
    - lostlogin 2mo ago
      > a mistake is unlikely to be repeated If it was a mistake, it happened at many facilities. That seems like a repeated mistake to me.
      - croon 2mo ago
        That's not what logically follows from my statement. It's a conclusion you can make if you believe my premises are false though. It could also be a third possibility of a bug/issue affecting many of these specific batches.