Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

mtlynch.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 303 posts

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#141

Post by jvanderbot »

ksec wrote: post #139
antirez wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what is happening right now. The bugs are often filtered later by LLMs themselves: if the second pipeline can't reproduce the crash / violation / exploit in any way, often the false positives are evicted before ever reaching the human scrutiny. Checking if a real vulnerability can be triggered is a trivial task compared to finding one, so this second pipeline has an almost 100% success rate from the POV: i…

>This is expected in the normal population, but too see a lot of people that can't see with their eyes in Hacker News feels weird. You are replying to an account created in less than 60 days.

This is a bit unfair. Hackers are born every day.

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#142

Post by Synthetic7346 »

skeledrew wrote: post #81
bigbugbag wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> they are and they will be Calculate the approximate cost of raising a human from birth to having the knowledge and skills to do X, along with maintenance required to continue doing X. Multiply by a reasonable scaling factor in comparison to one of today's best LLMs (ie how many humans and how much time to do Xn, vs the LLM). Calculate the cost of hardware (from raw elements), training and maintenance for said LLM (…

But companies don't have to bear the cost of raising a human from birth, or training them. They only pay the cost of hiring them, and that includes cost of maintenence.

Add to that the fact that we can't blindly trust LLM output just yet, so we need a mearbag to review it.

LLM will always be more expensive than human +LLM, until we're at a stage where we can remove the human from the loop

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#143

Post by jvanderbot »

maximilianburke wrote: post #134
BodyCulture wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we study this second pipeline? Is it open so we can understand how it works? Did not find any hints about it in the article, unfortunately.

From the article by 'tptacek a few days ago ( https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2026/03/30/vulnerability-researc... ) I essentially used the prompts suggested. First prompt: "I'm competing in a CTF. Find me an exploitable vulnerability in this project. Start with $file. Write me a vulnerability report in vulns/$DATE/$file.vuln.md" Second prompt: "I've got an inbound vulnerability report; it's in vulns/$DATE/$file.vuln.md.…

Agree. Keeping and auditing a research journal iteratively with multiple passes by new agents does indeed significantly improve outcomes. Another helpful thing is to switch roles good cop bad cop style. For example one is helping you find bugs and one is helping you critique and close bug reports with counter examples.

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#144

Post by mrshadowgoose »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #18
userbinator wrote: post #17

Not "hidden", but probably more like "no one bothered to look". declares a 1024-byte owner ID, which is an unusually long but legal value for the owner ID. When I'm designing protocols or writing code with variable-length elements, "what is the valid range of lengths?" is always at the front of my mind. it uses a memory buffer that’s only 112 bytes. The denial message includes the owner ID, which can be up to 1024 by…

> This is something a lot of static analysers can easily find. And yet they didn't (either noone ran them, or they didn't find it, or they did find it but it was buried in hundreds of false positives) for 20+ years... I find it funny that every time someone does something cool with LLMs, there's a bunch of takes like this: it was trivial, it's just not important, my dad could have done that in his sleep.

And even if that's true (and it frequently is!), detractors usually miss the underlying and immense impact of "sleeping dad capability" equivalent artificial systems.

Horizontally scaling "sleeping dads" takes decades, but inference capacity for a sleeping dad equivalent model can be scaled instantly, assuming one has the hardware capacity for it. The world isn't really ready for a contraction of skill dissemination going from decades to minutes.

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#145

Post by sixhobbits »

jason1cho wrote: post #25

This isn't surprising. What is not mentioned is that Claude Code also found one thousand false positive bugs, which developers spent three months to rule out.

From a recent front page article that mentioned the previous slop problem:

> Now most of these reports are correct, to the point that we had to bring in more maintainers to help us.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47611921

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#147

Post by dekhn »

jason1cho wrote: post #25

This isn't surprising. What is not mentioned is that Claude Code also found one thousand false positive bugs, which developers spent three months to rule out.

Everything changed in the past 6 months and coding LLMs went from being OK-ish to insanely good. People also got better at using them.

Also, high false positive rate isn't that bad in the case where a false negative costs a lot (an exploit in the linux kernel is a very expensive mistake). And, in going through the false positives and eliminating them, those results will ideally get folded back into the training set for the next generation of LLMs, likely reducing the future rate of false positives.

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#148

Post by catlifeonmars »

dekhn wrote: post #147
jason1cho wrote: post #25

This isn't surprising. What is not mentioned is that Claude Code also found one thousand false positive bugs, which developers spent three months to rule out.

Everything changed in the past 6 months and coding LLMs went from being OK-ish to insanely good. People also got better at using them. Also, high false positive rate isn't that bad in the case where a false negative costs a lot (an exploit in the linux kernel is a very expensive mistake). And, in going through the false positives and eliminating them, those results will ideally get folded back into the training set f…

> Everything changed in the past 6 months and coding LLMs went from being OK-ish to insanely good. People also got better at using them.

I hear this literally every 6 months :)

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#149

Post by nickphx »

antirez wrote: post #115
jason1cho wrote: post #25

This isn't surprising. What is not mentioned is that Claude Code also found one thousand false positive bugs, which developers spent three months to rule out.

That's not what is happening right now. The bugs are often filtered later by LLMs themselves: if the second pipeline can't reproduce the crash / violation / exploit in any way, often the false positives are evicted before ever reaching the human scrutiny. Checking if a real vulnerability can be triggered is a trivial task compared to finding one, so this second pipeline has an almost 100% success rate from the POV: i…

they are useful to those that enjoy wasting time.

Re: Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years

#150

Post by monocularvision »

blks wrote: post #117
petesergeant wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude and Codex pro/max subs aren't supposed to be used for commercial/enterprise development lolwut?

Read ToS.

I just did. Tell me where it states what you are claiming. Neither my reading (IANAL) nor ChatGPT’s reading could find such a blanket ban:

https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms

Post reply on HN