I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI.
-
@em_and_future_cats I'm also a huge bird admirer so this is more fun
wrt
> I’m not a coder or understand much about coding&
birdssee also
" a gentle and humorous introduction to combinatory logic and the associated metamathematics, built on an elaborate ornithological metaphor.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Mock_a_Mockingbird
"Combinatory logic, functionally equivalent to the lambda calculus, is a branch of symbolic logic having the expressive power of set theory, and with deep connections to questions of computability and provability. "
-
I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI. So here goes!
I recently got access to trusted access of cyber capabilities of both openai and anthropic, which also allows you to weaponize security vulnerabilities.
The speed at which these parrots can find bugs and be creative enough to exploit them is staggering.
I recently pointed an LLM at an kernel fix that was reachable by an unprivileged namespace on Debian and it fully weaponized it, without too much me prompting it in the right direction, in about 7-9 hours.
I don't think open-source and companies will know what's coming for them once these open-source weight models will have broader reach and get better at exploiting vulnerabilities on a massive scale as anyone can access them.
The bottom line I think is, you cannot patch faster than the attackers can easily chain all kinds of vulnerabilities together and just move laterally on an incredibly fast pace.
I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found. There's not enough maintainers, or there's simply none anymore.
I've been getting quite worried about what our future will look like for data privacy. I think outright not running an LLM over your codebase to find critical security vulnerabilities because of your moral stance will keep us more insecure.
Please run an LLM over your code base if it's internet facing or something critical, we thank you!
Can't wait for the discussions on this!
@drwhax Fuck. Off. You're trying to justify the unjustifiable. Stop using LLMs.
-
@drwhax Fuck. Off. You're trying to justify the unjustifiable. Stop using LLMs.
@pip ok doei
-
-
@drwhax One thing I don't see anyone addressing is how we got into this situation in the first place, or how we get out of it, and I'm not talking about the LLM or any of the already well known and discussed downsides of that.
How did the software get so insecure in the first place? How do we prevent security vulnerabilities before they occur? Most of the risks aren't unknown or even novel, so why haven't we prioritized the solutions?
>How did the software get so insecure
or put another way
Q) how did mathematics get so incomplete?
....
godel probably ?see also :
-
@MossyQuartz I still think thats a good idea to this day
wrt
> needed to be confirmed as accurate before we could trust
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mccoBBf0VDM
"we're assuming is consistent, doesn't have contradictions, but we're having to make that assumption."
"one of Gödel's conclusions is that
we cannot prove that mathematics does not have contradictions in it."🫠
-
I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI. So here goes!
I recently got access to trusted access of cyber capabilities of both openai and anthropic, which also allows you to weaponize security vulnerabilities.
The speed at which these parrots can find bugs and be creative enough to exploit them is staggering.
I recently pointed an LLM at an kernel fix that was reachable by an unprivileged namespace on Debian and it fully weaponized it, without too much me prompting it in the right direction, in about 7-9 hours.
I don't think open-source and companies will know what's coming for them once these open-source weight models will have broader reach and get better at exploiting vulnerabilities on a massive scale as anyone can access them.
The bottom line I think is, you cannot patch faster than the attackers can easily chain all kinds of vulnerabilities together and just move laterally on an incredibly fast pace.
I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found. There's not enough maintainers, or there's simply none anymore.
I've been getting quite worried about what our future will look like for data privacy. I think outright not running an LLM over your codebase to find critical security vulnerabilities because of your moral stance will keep us more insecure.
Please run an LLM over your code base if it's internet facing or something critical, we thank you!
Can't wait for the discussions on this!
The smalker the codebase, and, the smaller the software stack, then fewer chaining exploit paths can posdibly exist.
-
@SpaceLifeForm also this
-
1. Acceptance. There's the saying "you just need to be more secure than your neighbor". It's not fully true but biz people hold it so. It's flip side is a cynic commentary on security, and a true one at that: If your neighbor is not secure, you don't need to be either. This is still true if you're getting pwned. When everyone's getting hacked regularly, society will accept this new reality. Only the defense sector will still care for security. We've seen similar developments in different industries: Fast fashion isn't an adequate replacement for garment that stands the test of time. But it's getting impossible to buy good clothes, even if you want to. But also with other goods: If everyone produces low quality items, it's financially more reasonable to do the same.
2. Centralization. Coz we won't do the right thing and reduce complexity, we need to find a way to make complexity "secure": Cloud, Big5, etc. Corps that have the resources to host an Exchange server securely... or in compliance with regulations. Every tool you do not let a big house host is a liability. Not coz they're necessarily more secure, but because nobody will blame you if something gets wrong. We had that with "buying IBM" once.
I hate this outlook but I seriously doubt that we will correct course.
@ljrk @buherator @drwhax The defense sector cares less than they really should.
-
I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI. So here goes!
I recently got access to trusted access of cyber capabilities of both openai and anthropic, which also allows you to weaponize security vulnerabilities.
The speed at which these parrots can find bugs and be creative enough to exploit them is staggering.
I recently pointed an LLM at an kernel fix that was reachable by an unprivileged namespace on Debian and it fully weaponized it, without too much me prompting it in the right direction, in about 7-9 hours.
I don't think open-source and companies will know what's coming for them once these open-source weight models will have broader reach and get better at exploiting vulnerabilities on a massive scale as anyone can access them.
The bottom line I think is, you cannot patch faster than the attackers can easily chain all kinds of vulnerabilities together and just move laterally on an incredibly fast pace.
I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found. There's not enough maintainers, or there's simply none anymore.
I've been getting quite worried about what our future will look like for data privacy. I think outright not running an LLM over your codebase to find critical security vulnerabilities because of your moral stance will keep us more insecure.
Please run an LLM over your code base if it's internet facing or something critical, we thank you!
Can't wait for the discussions on this!
@drwhax One must know one's enemy and all that. If you don't try exploiting yourself, an adversary will first. Now adversaries have access to LLMs, and state sponsored things have not gone away. But an LLM puts the scale of state sponsored attacks in more reach of the typical hacker. So you can't just assume only Russia or China or whatever will do this, now you have to assume that the script kitty is almost as capable with much less funding.
-
I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI. So here goes!
I recently got access to trusted access of cyber capabilities of both openai and anthropic, which also allows you to weaponize security vulnerabilities.
The speed at which these parrots can find bugs and be creative enough to exploit them is staggering.
I recently pointed an LLM at an kernel fix that was reachable by an unprivileged namespace on Debian and it fully weaponized it, without too much me prompting it in the right direction, in about 7-9 hours.
I don't think open-source and companies will know what's coming for them once these open-source weight models will have broader reach and get better at exploiting vulnerabilities on a massive scale as anyone can access them.
The bottom line I think is, you cannot patch faster than the attackers can easily chain all kinds of vulnerabilities together and just move laterally on an incredibly fast pace.
I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found. There's not enough maintainers, or there's simply none anymore.
I've been getting quite worried about what our future will look like for data privacy. I think outright not running an LLM over your codebase to find critical security vulnerabilities because of your moral stance will keep us more insecure.
Please run an LLM over your code base if it's internet facing or something critical, we thank you!
Can't wait for the discussions on this!
@drwhax stop huffin' your own supply m8…
https://infosec.exchange/@drwhax/116997238394916522 -
@drwhax stop huffin' your own supply m8…
https://infosec.exchange/@drwhax/116997238394916522@Netzblockierer if your data leaks on a next LLM powered leak you can't cry!
-
>How did the software get so insecure
or put another way
Q) how did mathematics get so incomplete?
....
godel probably ?see also :
@pt_ickle @drwhax Yes, but also no. Illogical or "buggy" is a separate problem from security.
For example, the OWASP has had "Injection" as a Top 10 vulnerability maybe every publication; we can make systems that are secure by design.
Up until two years ago "Overflow" was the top CVE-by-classification vulnerability; we have memory safe languages and can implement safe-by-default string/integer handling.
And yet we largely haven't and keep repeating the same mistakes.
-
I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI. So here goes!
I recently got access to trusted access of cyber capabilities of both openai and anthropic, which also allows you to weaponize security vulnerabilities.
The speed at which these parrots can find bugs and be creative enough to exploit them is staggering.
I recently pointed an LLM at an kernel fix that was reachable by an unprivileged namespace on Debian and it fully weaponized it, without too much me prompting it in the right direction, in about 7-9 hours.
I don't think open-source and companies will know what's coming for them once these open-source weight models will have broader reach and get better at exploiting vulnerabilities on a massive scale as anyone can access them.
The bottom line I think is, you cannot patch faster than the attackers can easily chain all kinds of vulnerabilities together and just move laterally on an incredibly fast pace.
I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found. There's not enough maintainers, or there's simply none anymore.
I've been getting quite worried about what our future will look like for data privacy. I think outright not running an LLM over your codebase to find critical security vulnerabilities because of your moral stance will keep us more insecure.
Please run an LLM over your code base if it's internet facing or something critical, we thank you!
Can't wait for the discussions on this!
@drwhax
> I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found.Is there a public example of such vulnerability you have reported that you can show us?
I wonder if the majority of people reporting vulnerabilities by using Claude have trouble self-evaluating the quality of their reports.
-
@Netzblockierer if your data leaks on a next LLM powered leak you can't cry!
@drwhax It won't because I know how to properly airgap my shit…
-
@drwhax
> I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found.Is there a public example of such vulnerability you have reported that you can show us?
I wonder if the majority of people reporting vulnerabilities by using Claude have trouble self-evaluating the quality of their reports.
@castedo yes, some of these got an CVE assigned here: https://github.com/tuxera/ntfs-3g/security
As these are reported privately, there's no open issue. I could however make these findings open-source in a git repo if that's useful?
-
@drwhax It won't because I know how to properly airgap my shit…
@Netzblockierer tell me you dont understand it, wihtout saying you dont understand it
-
@castedo yes, some of these got an CVE assigned here: https://github.com/tuxera/ntfs-3g/security
As these are reported privately, there's no open issue. I could however make these findings open-source in a git repo if that's useful?
@drwhax I imagine anything that helps novices appreciate what kind of LLM-generated security vulnerability reports are NOT helpful. Perhaps your reports are good examples of thoughtful self-reviewed non-slop. Your news of success might encourage Claude novices to report unhelpful slop they can't self-evaluate.
-
I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI. So here goes!
I recently got access to trusted access of cyber capabilities of both openai and anthropic, which also allows you to weaponize security vulnerabilities.
The speed at which these parrots can find bugs and be creative enough to exploit them is staggering.
I recently pointed an LLM at an kernel fix that was reachable by an unprivileged namespace on Debian and it fully weaponized it, without too much me prompting it in the right direction, in about 7-9 hours.
I don't think open-source and companies will know what's coming for them once these open-source weight models will have broader reach and get better at exploiting vulnerabilities on a massive scale as anyone can access them.
The bottom line I think is, you cannot patch faster than the attackers can easily chain all kinds of vulnerabilities together and just move laterally on an incredibly fast pace.
I've started reporting vulnerabilities to all kinds of projects and the majority have trouble or patching issues found. There's not enough maintainers, or there's simply none anymore.
I've been getting quite worried about what our future will look like for data privacy. I think outright not running an LLM over your codebase to find critical security vulnerabilities because of your moral stance will keep us more insecure.
Please run an LLM over your code base if it's internet facing or something critical, we thank you!
Can't wait for the discussions on this!
@drwhax This is the crux of the problem countering russian disinformation too. Computers are fast. We are slow. We MUST have our good ones to counter the adversarial bad ones. There is no other answer. I'd like to speak with you at greater length privately about what something like that might look like.
https://mastodon.social/@Beggarmidas/116682187638404935 -
wrt
> needed to be confirmed as accurate before we could trust
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mccoBBf0VDM
"we're assuming is consistent, doesn't have contradictions, but we're having to make that assumption."
"one of Gödel's conclusions is that
we cannot prove that mathematics does not have contradictions in it."🫠
@pt_ickle
I watched the video you've referenced, but the accounting data we were required to review against the annual reports was historic data and, by being so, the data was a finite set of data which either could be traced to original receipts and verified, or could be reviewed and found inaccurate. I'm not a mathematician, but the video seems to be talking about the unknown and unknowable rather than the recorded transactions within a set timeframe, inclusive of numbers such as monetary units. Oh, Bertrand Russell did write some good stuff. I like his writing style.
