Live data from Hacker News

Vulnerability research is cooked

sockpuppet.org

131–140 of 181 posts

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#131
post #89
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres a video of a recent talk Nicolas Carlini gave this past week on Youtube. It’s eye opening. If you don’t believe that LLMs are going to transform the cybersecurity space after watching that I can’t help you.

It's this talk right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sd26pWhfmg 7 minutes in, he shows the SQLI he found in Ghost (the first sev:hi in the history of the project). If I'd remembered better, I would have mentioned in the post: * it's a blind SQL injection * Claude Code wrote an exploit for it. Not a POC. An exploit.

> Not a POC. An exploit.

What's the distinction? A proof of concept is just something that demonstrates that a bug is possible to exploit, by doing so.

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#132
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much of the current internet is posts that read as a superposition of sincere and parody, and until that's resolved how do you know how to respond?

If that was a jab it my writing then yes, I am absolutely being sincere because I am an expert on this topic. LLMs went from being ok at one-shoting a function a to being so good at hacking that it's difficult to evaluate them. Prospective customers get back to us after a demo and tell us about the exploits it found on their services that are so vague and technical that they wouldn't think to look for them.

> Prospective customers get back to us after a demo and tell us about the exploits it found on their services that are so vague and technical that they wouldn't think to look for them.

Um, have you actually verified that those are actual exploits then? Vague and technical sounds exactly like a description of AI slop...

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#133
'Substantial amounts of high-impact vulnerability research (maybe even most of it) will happen simply by pointing an agent at a source tree and typing “find me zero days”'

Not quite... what is forgotten here is that the developers themselves, with equal ease, _also_ will point agents at the source tree and will type "find me zero days".

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#134
post #25
post #8

I don't understand why the takeaway here is (unless I'm missing something), more or less "everything is going to get exploited all the time". If LLMs can really find a ton of vulnerabilities in my software, why would I not run them and just patch all the vulnerabilities, leading to perfectly secure software (or, at the very least, software for which LLMs can no longer find any new vulnerabilities)?

Attackers only have to be successful once while defenders have to be successful all the time?

Yes and no. Good defence is layered and an attacker needs to find a hole in each layer. Even if it is not layered intentionally a locally exploitable vulnerability gives little if you have no access to a remote system. But some asymmetry does exist.

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#135
post #8

I don't understand why the takeaway here is (unless I'm missing something), more or less "everything is going to get exploited all the time". If LLMs can really find a ton of vulnerabilities in my software, why would I not run them and just patch all the vulnerabilities, leading to perfectly secure software (or, at the very least, software for which LLMs can no longer find any new vulnerabilities)?

closed source software

deliberate vulnerabilities (thanks nsa)

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#136

Am I wrong in thinking that an "exploits are free" environment massively favors the defender? Given that real-world exploits usually chain 0days, the attacker has to find the whole chain while the defender only needs to fix the weakest link. The defender also gets to make the first move by just putting a "run an agent to find vulns" step in their CI pipeline. If LLMs truly make finding exploits free, almost no LLM-fi…

there are tools already like trufflehog that will find leaked secrets

macos still ships with live github private keys in the library folder

oops i put my god level aws key in js on my website

oops i put the supabase key in frontend

oh no! i am the maintainer of a hosted password manager and i took home the cmek key

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#137
post #8

I don't understand why the takeaway here is (unless I'm missing something), more or less "everything is going to get exploited all the time". If LLMs can really find a ton of vulnerabilities in my software, why would I not run them and just patch all the vulnerabilities, leading to perfectly secure software (or, at the very least, software for which LLMs can no longer find any new vulnerabilities)?

Breaking something is easier than fixing it.

That's why you simply make the LLM part of the CI checks on PRs.

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#138

Am I wrong in thinking that an "exploits are free" environment massively favors the defender? Given that real-world exploits usually chain 0days, the attacker has to find the whole chain while the defender only needs to fix the weakest link. The defender also gets to make the first move by just putting a "run an agent to find vulns" step in their CI pipeline. If LLMs truly make finding exploits free, almost no LLM-fi…

The higher the productivity multiplier towards exploiting software, the more developers would find themselves severely outmatched: exploiting software is someone’s full-time job, whereas the engineers already have one—building it.

To express this in numerical terms, let’s consider developer’s incentive to spend effort learning to find and actually finding vulnerabilities in their software (as oppposed to building it) as D, and attacker’s incentive to spend effort exploiting that software as A.

I would say initially A = D × 5 is fair. On one hand, the developer knows their code better. However, their code is open, and most software engineers by definition prefer building (otherwise they would have been pentesters) so that’s where most of their time is going. This is not news, of course, and has been so since forever. The newer factor is attackers working for nation-states, being protected by them, and potentially having figurative guns to their heads or at least livelihoods depending on the amount of damage they can deal; the lack of equivalent pressure on the developer’s side leads me to adjust it to A = D × 10.

×10 is our initial power differential between the attacker and the developer.

Now, let’s multiply that effort by a constant L, reflecting the productivity boost from LLMs. Let’s make it a 10 (I’m sure many would say LLMs make them more tham ×10 more productive in exploit-finding, but let’s be conservative).

Additionally, let’s multiply that by a variable DS/AS that reflects developer’s/attacker’s skill at using LLMs in such particular ways that find the most serious vulnerabilities. As a random guess, let’s say AS = DS × 5, as the attacker would have been exclusively using LLMs for this purpose.

With these numbers substituted in, X would be our new power differential:

    X = (A × L × AS) ÷ (D × L × DS)

    X = (D × 10 × 10 × DS × 5) ÷ (D × 10 × DS)

    X = 50. 
If my math is right, the power differential between the attacker and a developer jumps from 10 to 50 in favour of the attacker. If LLMs ×100 the productivity, the new differential would be 500.

I didn’t account for the fact that many (especially smaller) developers may not even have the resources to run the equivalent compute power as a dedicated hacking team.

Some ways to shift the balance back could be ditching the OSS model and going all-in on the so-called “trusted computing”. Both measures would increase the amount of effort (compute) the attacker may need to spend, but both happen to be highly unpopular as they put more and more power and control in the hand of the corporations that build our computers. In this way, the rise of LLMs certainly advances their interests.

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might have been true pre LLMs but you can literally point an agent at the queue until it’s empty now.

Shouldn't be down voted for saying this. There are active repo's this is happening in. "BuT ThE LlM iS pRoBaBlY iNtRoDuCiNg MoRe BuGs ThAn It FiXeS" This is an absurd take.

So, you have already fixed all the bugs and now just cruising through life?

Re: Vulnerability research is cooked

#140

Am I wrong in thinking that an "exploits are free" environment massively favors the defender? Given that real-world exploits usually chain 0days, the attacker has to find the whole chain while the defender only needs to fix the weakest link. The defender also gets to make the first move by just putting a "run an agent to find vulns" step in their CI pipeline. If LLMs truly make finding exploits free, almost no LLM-fi…

The world runs on legacy software, which simply has no budget for even asking LLMs to find vuls, not to mention fixing them. While you are right that it should favor the defenders, in practice, this is a disaster because, in many critical cases, there are no defenders.
Post reply on HN