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

Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

nesbitt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#61

Post by jibal »

mlyle wrote: post #51
xandrius wrote: post #36

Great write-up. Side note: interesting to see how many folks commenting did not get it being satire (even the title has LGTM). I guess it's time to rethink how sharp the HN folks truly are compared to the average non-tech person (not that I had any big assumptions myself). I'm curious about this recipe for chevre :D

I read it and saw LGTM and URL and was like "probably satire" but could not rule out it being real until like 30% in. It's like a modern version of Poe's law.

Just below the title are the tags "package-managers security satire ai"

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#62

Post by piskov »

john_strinlai wrote: post #27
hk__2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its tagged as satire at the very top of the page, first thing under the title Not the first thing, it’s buried in the tags as grey on light grey on white.

> it’s buried in the tags as grey on light grey on white. if you happened to miss the tags, reading approximately any of the article should make it pretty clear. " This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout. "

Quoting literally the last paragraph is not helping to promote this as obviously satire

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#66

Post by falcor84 »

unknownfuture wrote: post #38
dbliss wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great satire. The comedy of errors along the way made me realize that this could have happened also with humans instead of bots. But now it’s faster.

It... really couldn't? Step 3 in this fictional chain would never happen with a HITL. I honestly can't tell with comments like this whether folks have too much respect for AI, or to little respect for people...

What's "step 3"? I don't see step numbering anywhere?

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#67

Post by JRandomHacker42 »

xandrius wrote: post #36

Great write-up. Side note: interesting to see how many folks commenting did not get it being satire (even the title has LGTM). I guess it's time to rethink how sharp the HN folks truly are compared to the average non-tech person (not that I had any big assumptions myself). I'm curious about this recipe for chevre :D

HN has a big blind spot, in my opinion, around writing that isn't "purely technical". I've seen several cases of commenter complaining about "clickbait" for a blog post that I'd describe as "having a narrative hook and structure"

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#68

Post by john_strinlai »

piskov wrote: post #62
john_strinlai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s buried in the tags as grey on light grey on white. if you happened to miss the tags, reading approximately any of the article should make it pretty clear. " This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout. "

Quoting literally the last paragraph is not helping to promote this as obviously satire

it was just my favorite part. i can copy/paste all of the outlandish parts, if you want, but i would be copy/pasting the entire article.

ignoring the satire tag at the top of the page, some examples from the first ~20%:

    - its on a personal blog, with no mention of what the actual product is
    - resolving an incident "by treaty"
    - "Severity: Informational → Critical → Withdrawn → Critical → Negotiated"
    - incident *duration* measured in "billable tokens"
    - link to a CVE named "YIKES"
    - an incident being resolved by the attacker reading a file
    - no dates provided, just "Day 1, 02:51 UTC"
    - creats.io doesn't exist
and so on, and so on, and so on

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#70

Post by quijoteuniv »

nickcw wrote: post #35

That is very very funny, and oh so plausible. I enjoyed this bit a lot from the timeline > Karen Oyelaran finds the payload by reading the source code with her eyes and files a second issue. The triage assistant closes it as “duplicate of #8814.” Issue #8814 is a feature request for dark mode. Karen reopens it. The assistant closes it. Karen reopens it. Karen’s GitHub account is rate-limited for “patterns consistent…

It was funnier when i ask Ai what this was. The ai told me it was a satire about Ai, then i got it, funny.
Post reply on HN