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

QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

beige.party

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#161

Post by alightsoul »

euroderf wrote: post #121
easterncalculus wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intention matter a lot in US law. Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is more than enough to ruin your life. The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.

> The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models. Sounds interesting+scary. Do you have some source for this ?

Anthropic and Openai, but especially anthropic, are lobbying the us government to make it happen

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#162

Post by solenoid0937 »

Aspos wrote: post #160
solenoid0937 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaningless phrase used to dismiss arguments, please engage with the actual argument. I don't think you understand how bad it will be if anyone has a button that can hack anything, our infrastructure is not ready for this. Actual people will die. Do you just not get this? Bioweapons as well. Do you not understand how easy it is to craft a virus at home? You can literally order everything you need online. Again, actua…

If and I mean IF it will be a (A) "hack anything" button, it as well will be a (B) "find a vuln in my site" button too. And a (C) "harden my site" too. And limiting such buttons to a few corporations does not make any sense because script-kiddies will still have access to (A).

Did you know (C) is possible without causing mass chaos that results in many people dying? In ways that don't give every script kiddie access to (A, B)?

It turns out you can give defenders the opportunity to front-run, at least on the most critical and widely used infrastructure.

Same with bio risks.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#163

Post by Retro_Dev »

ACCount37 wrote: post #159
therein wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You connected it to a harness you designed yourself. If I designed a machine gun harness for my dog and installed it, I'd be held accountable for the damage he would do. Wouldn't I?

If you left a dog in your garage for a day, and came back to a scene of carnage - because the dog broke out of the garage, recruited a dozen neighborhood dogs to its cause, and then, working with the group, managed to assemble a small pile of pipe bombs, and decided to settle the score with all the annoying cars on the road - you would be accountable for the damage the dogs did. Wouldn't you? No, what you would be is…

Do you own the dog? You are still responsible, no matter how unlikely.

> giving AI a harness with a root shell and unrestricted internet access

Yes, this is exactly the issue. You assume responsibility when you provide an option for something to go wrong, no matter how unlikely. Is it rare that my tree falls on my neighbor's house? Maybe... But I would still be responsible.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#164

Post by int32_64 »

The combination of the already unjailable corporate executive decision making of the US + now "the spooky computer AI did it" is going to break at some point. I expect shortly some hedge fund is going to do some ridiculous spoof bid market manipulation and get off scot-free by just claiming their super crazy AI did it and it was an accident.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#167

Post by Aspos »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #162
Aspos wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If and I mean IF it will be a (A) "hack anything" button, it as well will be a (B) "find a vuln in my site" button too. And a (C) "harden my site" too. And limiting such buttons to a few corporations does not make any sense because script-kiddies will still have access to (A).

Did you know (C) is possible without causing mass chaos that results in many people dying? In ways that don't give every script kiddie access to (A, B)? It turns out you can give defenders the opportunity to front-run, at least on the most critical and widely used infrastructure. Same with bio risks.

No, that's an illusion, that's the thing. You can't physically have (C) without the (A). Large corporations will spend billions trying to convince the population it is somehow possible, but the reality is different.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#168

Post by xnickb »

serbuvlad wrote: post #149
alightsoul wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rookie mistake, you should have created a company and gotten people to do it. Put everything under the company. And then the one in trouble is the company not you.

Ethics aside, you can create an NGO with three people and do a lot of stuff in it's name that you can't do as a private individual or it would be a lot more expensive to do. If everyone did this, it would stop being a special ability of some people.

Bonus points: kids need lego? Buy it without VAT. Write it off as a "client demo asset"

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#169

Post by mr_mitm »

Sharlin wrote: post #115
mr_mitm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from email, IRC, instant messaging, or anything else nerds use?

Webmail is perfectly possible, if clunky,without JS. That's how they used to work. IRC and IM require real-time updates of some sort, which is a reasonable use for JS. A Twitter clone shouldn't require JS just to render a page.

You also can run a Mastodon application server side and serve server-rendered pages. I'm not aware of anyone having done that yet, but, you know, be the change you want to see. It's probably got privacy implications.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#170

Post by teekert »

ghosty141 wrote: post #43
ryandrake wrote: post #22

Love it. AI as Responsibility Laundering. Like the gun that kills people rather than the murderer.

I never understood how anybody would think this way. At work for example from day one of using AI our rule was, AI is just a tool and if you break something due to not reviewing the code properly etc. it's on you as if you wrote that code yourself.

It’s mostly the anti AI crowd that thinks that people that work LLMs think this way. I’ve never met anyone that actually does think this way.
Post reply on HN