11–20 of 22 posts
If AI can do mass exploitation then it can also do mass patching. Some malware in the past has been used to mass patch machines. Get to it. Give the teams doing this presidential pardons and full immunity. Apply patches and mitigations on all the things. Impress us all. One big downtime, get 'er done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_3:_Rise_of_the_Mach...
If AI can do mass exploitation then it can also do mass patching. Some malware in the past has been used to mass patch machines. Get to it. Give the teams doing this presidential pardons and full immunity. Apply patches and mitigations on all the things. Impress us all. One big downtime, get 'er done.
Do you trust the AI to build perfect patches? Do you trust it to not leave backdoors in the process? If it's smart enough to do the first, I don't trust it to do the second.
If there is a third option where companies drop everything, all hands on deck to patch all the things I would take that but it's just never been a priority. That's why I was always a big fan of ransomware separating customer data away from companies that should not have had it in the first place.
If AI can do mass exploitation then it can also do mass patching. Some malware in the past has been used to mass patch machines. Get to it. Give the teams doing this presidential pardons and full immunity. Apply patches and mitigations on all the things. Impress us all. One big downtime, get 'er done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you trust the AI to build perfect patches? Do you trust it to not leave backdoors in the process? If it's smart enough to do the first, I don't trust it to do the second.
I don't even believe that AI is real. To me it's just a predictive chat bot using LLM with big-data shoved up it's back-side. As for trust, I do not trust anyone or anything but if our choices are mass exploitation and mass patching, I will take the latter if people are not patching their own stuff especially if AI can gain access to it already. If AI can get to it so can spooks right now. There is a lot of hardware…
Hmm. The article seems to be about AIs enabling cyberattacks. How bad would a cyberattack have to be to topple a government? I guess I could see a parliamentary government losing public confidence if it failed to prevent a severe enough attack. I'm not sure I see it for something like the US, where elections are fixed. It might swing the next election, but that's not the same as "toppling a government", is it?
Effective enough news investigations have toppled governments already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even believe that AI is real. To me it's just a predictive chat bot using LLM with big-data shoved up it's back-side. As for trust, I do not trust anyone or anything but if our choices are mass exploitation and mass patching, I will take the latter if people are not patching their own stuff especially if AI can gain access to it already. If AI can get to it so can spooks right now. There is a lot of hardware…
How could some worm imposed patching work? If a piece of software is insecure and you switch the binary to secure, the insecure version would uploaded in the next update - and secure version likely treated like malware itself.
If AI can do mass exploitation then it can also do mass patching. Some malware in the past has been used to mass patch machines. Get to it. Give the teams doing this presidential pardons and full immunity. Apply patches and mitigations on all the things. Impress us all. One big downtime, get 'er done.
It would be simpler require critical software to focus on security and quickly shift to secure approaches. I mean, there are was article about how small water districts are short on funds and so choose to allow remote access to water treatment machinery so their engineers can work weekends at home. Imposing regulation that stop such d--- f--- tradeoffs seems obvious. HOWEVER, the paradigm of cost-reduction via breakn…
Suddenly when we invest 100m into cyber security (project glasswire) and 100b in training toppling governments is months away, but if you were to train and hire a team of people for the same amount of money it's nothing new. There might be a bigger reason why five eyes is doing this, but even with all the knowledge I have of the (publically known) capabilities of five eyes I really don't see why this statement exists…
NSA and others employ thousands of people who actually are super good at computers. If this message was coming from those people--actual credible experts--I'd be a lot more interested. Instead, what it seems like is happening here is the same organizational brain rot that's happening everywhere. Out of touch leadership, a skewed information environment, and bad incentives align to produce utterly insane conclusions divorced from reality. In short, psychotic delusions.
This is, probably, just marketing noise. Nothing to worry about, except that the people spouting it have been psychologically compromised. So if their job function is essential, that's a problem.