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

OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

openssh.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#21

Post by asveikau »

akerl_ wrote: post #13
3asj176 wrote: post #9

No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general. They mention security bug reports, so using AI like ASAN etc. is welcome.

> No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general. Can you cite that? I see them specifically welcoming AI security reports; I don't see any evidence that other AI submissions are not welcome.

These policies seem to be often evolving lately in many projects, but I believe OpenBSD (the project OpenSSH is contained inside) is currently skeptical of AI generated code contributions at this point in time.

For example, I found this on a Google search, here is a thread from Theo, the project leader, about LLM output and copyright, where he says they can't accept it into the tree on copyright grounds. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=177425035627562&w=2

Elsewhere in the thread he implies using it for a code review tool is ok

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#22

Post by mmooss »

3asj176 wrote: post #9

No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general. They mention security bug reports, so using AI like ASAN etc. is welcome.

They plainly, explicitly welcome it:

"Recently the OpenSSH team have received a large number of security bug reports, many of which are findings from AI models or made with AI assistance. While many AI reports are determined not to have security impact when considered in the context of a realistic threat model, we very much welcome these reports, especially when combined with human triage, analysis, test-cases and particularly when accompanied by proposed fixes."

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#23

Post by 1sahG »

mmooss wrote: post #22
3asj176 wrote: post #9

No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general. They mention security bug reports, so using AI like ASAN etc. is welcome.

They plainly, explicitly welcome it: "Recently the OpenSSH team have received a large number of security bug reports, many of which are findings from AI models or made with AI assistance. While many AI reports are determined not to have security impact when considered in the context of a realistic threat model, we very much welcome these reports, especially when combined with human triage, analysis, test-cases and pa…

[flagged]

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#24

Post by minimaltom »

asveikau wrote: post #21
akerl_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general. Can you cite that? I see them specifically welcoming AI security reports; I don't see any evidence that other AI submissions are not welcome.

These policies seem to be often evolving lately in many projects, but I believe OpenBSD (the project OpenSSH is contained inside) is currently skeptical of AI generated code contributions at this point in time. For example, I found this on a Google search, here is a thread from Theo, the project leader, about LLM output and copyright, where he says they can't accept it into the tree on copyright grounds. https://marc…

Idk if its accurate to rote project the policies of OpenBSD to OpenSSH, yes technically its a subproject but in practice stewardship and thus effective policy is pretty much all damien.

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#25

Post by dpoloncsak »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #17
dpoloncsak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'd rather a secure OpenSSH than an AI free one. I appreciate users taking stands and drawing hard lines in the sand, but I think exemptions for large foundations of networking in general should be made, as like you said, threat actors don't care much about AI assistance and will happily use any 0-days it finds.

If you need to make exemptions for critical code because you must admit that AI is undeniably of significant utility, it's pretty foolish to still apply a blanket "hard stand" against it elsewhere. AI is here, and it's not going anywhere. It's not going to be pretty, but the people that are going to be hit the hardest are those who cannot -- or worse, refuse to -- adapt. I'm sympathetic -- I feel both a loss and an e…

I agree with you, but I can also understand the perspective of someone who thinks, (pulling this example out of my ass) that using LLMs to review if your AAA game is 'un-cheatable' may be a misappropriate of the resources required to do so.

I'm just vouching for, at a minimum, a general acceptance of LLM security audits for 'critical infrastructure' (OpenSSH, Apache, Electron, etc.) These have become bastions of the internet as we know them today and security issues that exist in these could be disastrous. It seems like LLMs have become really good at this sort of audit specifically, but maybe that's all marketing. If you are to believe the hype, though, it seems irresponsible to not be securing these such softwares with whatever tools are available...LLMs, contracted experts, bug bounties....throw it all at the wall and see what sticks.

Obviously, something like OpenBSD (OpenSSH devs) is a non-profit, and may have trouble finding the funds for the tokens for regular audits, but that's another discussion.

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#26

Post by ahartmetz »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #8

> ssh(1): add a "ssh -Z user@host" mode that prints the keys that will be tried for public key authentication in the order that they will be used. Oh, that's a nice new feature:)

Yeah, I've occasionally had to divine from verbose debug output that the remote host didn't like more than three or so public key attempts before requiring another auth type.

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#27

Post by ghshephard »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #8

> ssh(1): add a "ssh -Z user@host" mode that prints the keys that will be tried for public key authentication in the order that they will be used. Oh, that's a nice new feature:)

I don't think there has been a single month in the last 5 years that I haven't had to figure out which public-key was used to authenticate me to a host via `ssh -vv` - often to let someone else who is failing to connect know which key to use.

The `-Z` is less useful - as I almost always know exactly which and what order the public keys are - as most of our sshd instances fail after 5 attempts - so making sure either (A) the correct ones or used or (clumsily, B) - just putting the correct one in the first five to try.

Would be a nice feature to echo which key successfully worked.

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#28

Post by [deleted] »

minimaltom wrote: post #24
asveikau wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These policies seem to be often evolving lately in many projects, but I believe OpenBSD (the project OpenSSH is contained inside) is currently skeptical of AI generated code contributions at this point in time. For example, I found this on a Google search, here is a thread from Theo, the project leader, about LLM output and copyright, where he says they can't accept it into the tree on copyright grounds. https://marc…

Idk if its accurate to rote project the policies of OpenBSD to OpenSSH, yes technically its a subproject but in practice stewardship and thus effective policy is pretty much all damien.

[deleted]

Re: OpenSSH 10.5/10.5p1

#29

Post by nickysielicki »

jscd wrote: post #2

Am I crazy to think this title is just incorrect? They say AI reports are welcome, not fixes.

They say AI reports are welcome, especially when corroborated by human triage, and/or when accompanied by fixes (unconstrained by any adjective, eg human or otherwise).
Post reply on HN