Live data from Hacker News

Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

dbreunig.com

111–120 of 230 posts

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#111
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On that latest episode of 'Security Cryptography Whatever' [0] they mention that the time spent on improving the harness (at the moment) end up being outperformed by the strategy of "wait for the next model". I doubt that will continue, but it broke my intuition about how to improve them [0] https://securitycryptographywhatever.com/2026/03/25/ai-bug-f...

It’s a good thing to keep in mind, but LLM + scaffolding is clearly superior. So if you just use vanilla LLMs you will always be behind. I think the important thing is to avoid over-optimizing. Your scaffold, not avoid building one altogether.

It's wild to me that a paragraph or 7 of plain English that amounts to "be good at things" is enough to make a material difference in the LLM's performance.

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm. Matching decompilation in particular (where you match the compiler along with your guess at source, compile, then compare assembly, repeating if it doesn't match) is very token-intensive, but it's now very viable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46080498 Of course LLMs see a lot more source-assembly pairs than even skilled reverse engineers, so this makes sense. Any area where you can get unlimited…

Has anyone used an LLM to deobfuscate compiled Javascript?

Yep. They are good at it.

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#113
post #53

There's still the question of access to the codebase. By all accounts, the best LLM cyber scanning approaches are really primitive - it's just a bash script that goes through every single file in the codebase and, for each one and runs a "find the vulns here" prompt. The attacker usually has even less access than this - in the beginning, they have network tools, an undocumented API, and maybe some binaries. You can d…

On that latest episode of 'Security Cryptography Whatever' [0] they mention that the time spent on improving the harness (at the moment) end up being outperformed by the strategy of "wait for the next model". I doubt that will continue, but it broke my intuition about how to improve them [0] https://securitycryptographywhatever.com/2026/03/25/ai-bug-f...

> it broke my intuition about how to improve them

Here we go again.

http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#114
As a result of all this AI "find a zero-day" business, when I boot to windows I open the task manager and order by pid. I kill anything I didn't start or don't recognise.

The only process that scared me was windowgrid. It kept finding a way back when I killed all the "start with boot" locations I know. Run, runonce, start up apps, etc. Surely it's not in autoexec.bat :)

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#116
Maybe code quality shouldn't be considered cybersecurity in the first place?

When things are tagged "cybersecurity", compliance/budget/manager/dashboard/education/certification are the usual response...

I don't think it would be an appropriate response for code quality issues, and it would likely escape the hands of the very people who can fix code quality issues, ie. developers.

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#118
Long ago, during the Viet Nam conflict, the US government learned that computers needed to be able to securely process data from multiple levels of classification simultaneously. Research in the 1970s found solutions that were adopted in the Mainframe world, like KeyKOS and EROS. Then the PC revolution swept all that away, and we're here 40+ years later, with operating systems that trust every bit of code the user runs with that user's full authority.

It's nuts. If the timing were slightly different, none of this "Cybersecurity" would even be a thing. We'd just have capabilities based, secure general purpose computation.

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#119
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, though, is that this turns "one of our developers was hit by a supply chain attack that never hit prod, we wiped their computer and rotated keys, and it's not like we're a big target for the attacker to make much use of anything they exfiltrated..." into "now our entire source code has been exfiltrated and, even with rudimentary line-by-line scanning, will be automatically audited for privilege escalatio…

This is a great example of vulnerability chains that can be broken by vulnerability scanning by even cheaper open source models. The outcome of a developer getting pwned doesn't have to lead to total catastrophe. Having trivial privilege escalations closed off means an attacker will need to be noisy and set off commodity alerting. The will of the company to implement fixes for the 100 Github dependabot alerts on thei…

It's great news for developers. Extra spend on a development/test env so dev have no prod access, prod has no ssh access; and SREs get two laptops, with the second one being a Chromebook that only pulls credentials when it's absolutely necessary.

Re: Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now

#120
The PoW analogy completely ignores the actual hard part: fixing the stuff. It’s cool if you burn millions of tokens to find 1,000 bugs, but it's completely useless if your small team only has the bandwidth to safely patch 5 of them without taking down prod.
Post reply on HN