yesterday at 11:45 PM
Ubuntu will need a LOT more time than that.
yesterday at 5:43 PM
Starting today, our policy is “Full 90”, i.e. vulnerabilities will be disclosed 90 days after they are reported to the vendor.
On February 2, 2027, we will move to a “Full 60” policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after 60 days.
On January 3, 2028, we will move to a “Full 30” policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after 30 days.
yesterday at 9:37 PM
yesterday at 8:01 PM
Perhaps eventually, they can finally live up to their namesake. On January 1 2029, we will move to a "Full 0" policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after (looks at camera) zero days.
yesterday at 8:26 PM
If AI is doing all the work I could see that; same day remediation.
yesterday at 10:01 PM
Which means developers must trust AI blindly since there is no time to review the fix. Which also means that developers are completely unneeded
yesterday at 11:26 PM
No, that's not what it means. It just means that the benefit must outweigh the risk, as always. Making surgical patches to existing code is also quite different to introducing features, which is what developers typically spend their time on. Not that same-day patching would imply literally zero time to review either.
yesterday at 10:12 PM
That does not follow. Somebody stills needs to set it up. And maybe to sign off. The AI could instantly diagnose and summarize the problem and its remediation and you say the word.
yesterday at 10:59 PM
And someone who understands the whole thing needs time to validate that the remediation is indeed what it's supposed to be.
yesterday at 11:02 PM
No, they're not - they can just release and wait for another vulnerability disclosure. Then the loop between [Vendors] and Project Zero needs no humans in it.
yesterday at 11:23 PM
“Someone” being another AI agent.
It’s agents all the way down.
yesterday at 8:30 PM
If AI is doing all the work then why would remediation be needed at all? Why can't the software AI produces be vuln-free if the same AI is used to detect them?
yesterday at 8:38 PM
Because the people finding the vulns aren't the people running the services.
yesterday at 8:44 PM
Why aren't they? The people running the services can use the AI to find the vulnerabilities before they release.
yesterday at 10:37 PM
You talk as though there is one AI model that is perfect and capable of identifying all potential flaws with no mistakes or omissions, and that access is free and unlimited.
Reality is more complicated than that.
yesterday at 8:49 PM
Exactly. That's super irresponsible to knowingly release software that you haven't used AI to check if it had any vulns. There's zero (heh) excuse to release vulnerable software at that point.
yesterday at 11:39 PM
Catching lots of bugs in software written with poor methodology is the new norm and that is not the same as releasing software that is not vulnerable. That is releasing software that needs increasing technological improvements or luck to find remaining vulnerabilities.
yesterday at 8:50 PM
Is the AI in the room with you right now?
yesterday at 11:04 PM
The Machine is everywhere. Watching us with ten thousand eyes. Listening with a million ears.
yesterday at 10:00 PM
Unrelated, but didn't realise .google was a TLD.
yesterday at 10:26 PM
Actually many brands pay for their own TLD, though most go unused (publicly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...
yesterday at 10:25 PM
There's lots of them now. Companies can apply to have their own for a few hundred thousand dollars.
yesterday at 10:59 PM
so are .ads, .android, .cal, .chrome, .dclk, .docs, .drive, .gbiz, .gle, .gmail, .goog, .google, .guge, .hangout, .map, .meet, .play, .prod, .search,, .youtube, and .グーグル, .谷歌.
They are all owned by Google, but registrations are not open to the public.
yesterday at 8:54 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 9:25 PM
Nice unsolicited plug for your slop product.
yesterday at 9:29 PM
I’m not familiar with this specific effort but it seems like the companies digging around for the bugs should also offer similar access to their products that discovered the vulnerabilities to the vendors or OSS projects to patch them. Otherwise vendors might use this as a leveraged approach to get people to adopt LLMs, specifically theirs, so their products remain reasonably attractive. Google, OpenAI, Anthropic etc could just turn on existing software as a strategy to get more adoption of their tools.
“Don’t like our constant stream of patches? For $10k/mo + tokens you can get access to the model to patch the vulnerabilities we disclose!”
yesterday at 10:57 PM
The "product" that finds Project Zero bugs is the people who work for Project Zero.
yesterday at 9:31 PM
Project Zero has been around far longer than GenAI or LLMs, so your point is not really relevant here.
yesterday at 9:50 PM
How is it irrelevant? Just because an effort existed before some change, doesn’t mean it can be repurposed and leveraged for other purposes. It’s the entire reason law and policy for government isn’t set in stone and is adaptable, because culture, technology and so on change.
The dynamic in this context absolutely has changed. Marginal cost to discover vulnerabilities from AI frontier labs and the big players has dropped significantly. The cost to patch is low, if you have access to certain resources. If you don’t, tough luck.
So this argument is essentially against the entire argument of AI alignment guardrails right now. Maybe you disagree with those, but I for one am happy they’re doing some things to protect against bio related warfare engineering. This is a case of cyber that’s about grey. Even there the labs have limited access to some and are choosing winners.
yesterday at 10:15 PM
Usually you can’t find the kind of bugs P0 finds by just throwing AI at it. You need highly skilled people driving/guiding it. Highly skilled people are the bottleneck.
In any case it’d be sensible to make yourself familiar with the “specific effort” before you make up your opinion on it.
yesterday at 10:02 PM
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I mean, sure, the cited $10k / mo is exploitative for small open-source projects but... in general, why wouldn't we want there to be pressure on companies and projects to use high-quality LLM-based checks if they want to see wide adoption?