I know Mastodon hates LLM's and AI.
-
@drwhax
If the imbalance between attack and defence is AI, why can't AI be used to make patches instead of exploits?@koehntopp @drwhax The idea is to use the AI to defend against exploits found by AI. No matter what Anthropic will be paid, you can't break the tools of the oppressor with his tools.
-
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'm glad you've invited discussions on this, because my immediate thoughts and questions diverge from the discussion I'm primarily seeing here. When you mention vulnerabilities, yes you mention they exist in code as well as in projects. When I think of vulnerabilities, I think of the method I am using to make and maintain a record of something or else to achieve a goal or state of physical safety. For example, if my household accounting spreadsheets and forecasts are handwritten then the vulnerability is risk of loss if the dog eats them, but risk is mitigated when I keep an offline digital file. When a family member starts a small business, I ask the questions learnt in my accounting and auditing classes because I believe the risks involved include thinking about how to prevent losses of whatever is important. I only had a couple of BASIC programming classes in 1984, but it seemed to me that in those days the instructor felt we should understand the process so that we could consider risks. I now wonder if the machine-assisted searching allows you to consider the assorted practical situations of each business whose vulnerabilities are being sought. -
@drwhax I've been very concerned about the emergence of Mythos-class AI that can weaponize vulns. I'm personally responding by adding formal memory safety proof coverage to critical libraries in C (notably: OpenSSL). Testing - which can identify many but not all bugs - I no longer consider sufficient. Instead we need formal verification to prove the *absence* of bugs/vulns. #aicoding #security
@davidfstr I liked Halvar Flake's analogy, which i was sometimes a long the lines of, a bug every 10 years instead of 1 year. I think we can do a lot to prevent it, but there's always going to be bugs. I also think Mythos is way too hyped and these capabilities already exist in modern frontier models.
-
@drwhax I am old enough to remember RAM prices fluctuating between "having to sell a kidney" and "oooh, I get to max out my motherboard if I collect the deposit on these empty beer bottles" several times.
-
@galacticstone Well, pandoras box is already open .. and we will never be able to close it sadly....
-
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 so disclaimer, I’m not a coder or understand much about coding, but I have to mention this because it did make me laugh (hope someone finds this funny too)
When you mentioned your “parrot” at work breaking things apart & finding “vulnerabilities” (yes I know you were referring to the program
) my first thought was : “if you could make a program like that I think the best name for it would be a Kia parrot” (use scientific name probably )
(From their propensity to break things apart) -
@drwhax
If the imbalance between attack and defence is AI, why can't AI be used to make patches instead of exploits?@koehntopp this parrot is really good at pattern recognition, it can code and fix some I think given enough constraints and a feedback loop of adversarial review, but it still might not be up to the style of the codebase or it might even introduce new vulnerabilities. I still think we also haven't it fully figured out yet? I think this needs more benchmarks that are reproducible in some fashion
-
@drwhax Can't the LLMs also write patches to fix these vulnerabilities? If not, why?
@fabrice I replied about this here: https://infosec.exchange/@drwhax/116998200727608092
-
@koehntopp this parrot is really good at pattern recognition, it can code and fix some I think given enough constraints and a feedback loop of adversarial review, but it still might not be up to the style of the codebase or it might even introduce new vulnerabilities. I still think we also haven't it fully figured out yet? I think this needs more benchmarks that are reproducible in some fashion
@drwhax
I'd prefer that to be the focus of research over breaking stuff faster -
@drwhax
I'm glad you've invited discussions on this, because my immediate thoughts and questions diverge from the discussion I'm primarily seeing here. When you mention vulnerabilities, yes you mention they exist in code as well as in projects. When I think of vulnerabilities, I think of the method I am using to make and maintain a record of something or else to achieve a goal or state of physical safety. For example, if my household accounting spreadsheets and forecasts are handwritten then the vulnerability is risk of loss if the dog eats them, but risk is mitigated when I keep an offline digital file. When a family member starts a small business, I ask the questions learnt in my accounting and auditing classes because I believe the risks involved include thinking about how to prevent losses of whatever is important. I only had a couple of BASIC programming classes in 1984, but it seemed to me that in those days the instructor felt we should understand the process so that we could consider risks. I now wonder if the machine-assisted searching allows you to consider the assorted practical situations of each business whose vulnerabilities are being sought.@MossyQuartz Apologies that this is just talking about computer vulnerabilities, but yes, you're right about risk modeling in the away from keyboard world!
-
@drwhax so disclaimer, I’m not a coder or understand much about coding, but I have to mention this because it did make me laugh (hope someone finds this funny too)
When you mentioned your “parrot” at work breaking things apart & finding “vulnerabilities” (yes I know you were referring to the program) my first thought was : “if you could make a program like that I think the best name for it would be a Kia parrot” (use scientific name probably )
(From their propensity to break things apart)@em_and_future_cats I'm also a huge bird admirer so this is more fun
-
@MossyQuartz Apologies that this is just talking about computer vulnerabilities, but yes, you're right about risk modeling in the away from keyboard world!
@drwhax Computer vulnerabilities, alright that's fair. When I took the Computerized Accounting class in 1985, students were told the business should continue the manual accounting methods concurrent with the new processes for two years, or more, because certain daily functions could look alright while other annual functions might not be obvious until after the annual reports are printed and reviewed. That was how us old people were taught about computers, they said the data needed to be confirmed as accurate before we could trust it.
-
@atraidez I think you're missing the point of my post, your anger is right and it's only downhill from here on out. It's also not going away, while people will also getting hurt with it if we don't find ways to patch whole classes of vulnerabilities. It's a perfect storm
-
@drwhax Computer vulnerabilities, alright that's fair. When I took the Computerized Accounting class in 1985, students were told the business should continue the manual accounting methods concurrent with the new processes for two years, or more, because certain daily functions could look alright while other annual functions might not be obvious until after the annual reports are printed and reviewed. That was how us old people were taught about computers, they said the data needed to be confirmed as accurate before we could trust it.
@MossyQuartz I still think thats a good idea to this day
-
@drwhax I'm paid by Red Hat to do this, and am given access to all the resources I need -- but it must be soul destroying for an open source contributor just doing OSS for fun as a hobby.
I keep telling myself that all this security stuff isn't much fun, but it probably makes open source stronger in the long term.
I think it helps to have very strict rules upstream for the flood of AI reports, e.g. https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/blob/main/SECURITY.md#reporting-a-vulnerability
@hughsie @drwhax I think a lot of projects aren't clear where they stand between professional and hobby development and how much responsibility they should be taking on. Just because you donated some work to the world as FOSS and a company picked it up and distributes it as part of a product, doesn't make you responsible for the "supply chain" your hobby project finds itself in. IMHO any company which ships FOSS (which is _all_ of them) needs to vendor their dependencies, or have a contractual agreement for maintenance, and not just rely on the goodwill of the original author or volunteers for things like security, QA / CI testing, etc. I feel like a number of devs have gotten suckered into a culture of emulating commercial professional development (using an issue tracker, reviewing merge/pull requests, having numbered version releases, using CI and test suites, etc.) for things which are fundamentally non-commercial hobby projects and end up deeply unhappy burning their nights and weekends doing software maintenance because "people depend on them", like a martyr, and it feels rude to tell those people to get stuffed.
I think a fundamental way we should structure human systems is to limit the responsibility (and correlated damage) any one person can have on their own because our poor little meat-brains aren't really built for 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!
@drwhax telling maintainers to run LLM based bug searches and start writing fixes, while not providing them with money, free time, or other required means and support, can be seen as a form of agression ...
-
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 Nah, i don't care anymore. I'd rather let them break everything than get blackmailed. Fuck it, honestly, the internet is a pile of shit these days anyway, let it burn. I'mm done feeling bad about this while everyone keeps holding down the pedal as we rush towards the wall.
What does it matter, seriously? Soon it will be too expensive for any normal person or project to run anyway and then only bad actors will use it. So what's this? A bandaid for the break dam? Pointless.
-
@jeroen94704 @drwhax I will probably end up doing exactly that, yes. Hope all of this fucking rots in hell.
@chroma @jeroen94704 @drwhax You'll then have to take refute as a mountain hermit as all the society is permeated by computers.
Computers with FOSS in them and hence, most certainly LLM'd material will be involved at some point.
Even without the software parts, processes and hardware (computer or not) will have the taint of the LLM too.
-
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 may be one of the only niche use cases where LLM technology may actually be useful, and it may be what Linus Torvalds was talking about when it comes to AI and the Linux kernel. Directly deploying AI code in the kernel could violate the GPL.
But as for auditing existing code for potential vulnerabilities, and the pen-testing stuff, this may be a viable use case.
But that's not what the AI companies promote. They promote the AI-powered shovelware development use case instead.
-
@hughsie @drwhax I think a lot of projects aren't clear where they stand between professional and hobby development and how much responsibility they should be taking on. Just because you donated some work to the world as FOSS and a company picked it up and distributes it as part of a product, doesn't make you responsible for the "supply chain" your hobby project finds itself in. IMHO any company which ships FOSS (which is _all_ of them) needs to vendor their dependencies, or have a contractual agreement for maintenance, and not just rely on the goodwill of the original author or volunteers for things like security, QA / CI testing, etc. I feel like a number of devs have gotten suckered into a culture of emulating commercial professional development (using an issue tracker, reviewing merge/pull requests, having numbered version releases, using CI and test suites, etc.) for things which are fundamentally non-commercial hobby projects and end up deeply unhappy burning their nights and weekends doing software maintenance because "people depend on them", like a martyr, and it feels rude to tell those people to get stuffed.
I think a fundamental way we should structure human systems is to limit the responsibility (and correlated damage) any one person can have on their own because our poor little meat-brains aren't really built for it.
@raven667 @hughsie @drwhax EU is attempting parts of this. We'll see about how the realexisting version of this will turn out.
Other than that: Ensure awareness for said corporates by enforcing the existing rights on the components they use.
There'll probably have to be some sort of enforcement threshold or staggered requirements.And a large part of it is probably to just answer to requests for features/fixes/... with "pull request welcome" or "here's my hourly rate" to any corporate requests.
Unfortunately, this is not trained for.
