Key part of the article../ “if the user configures ‘always allow’ for any command”
IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
31–40 of 126 posts
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#32Promptarmor did a similar attack(1) on Google's Antigravity that is also a beta version. Since then, they added secure mode(2).
These are still beta tools. When the tools are ready, I'd argue that they will probably be safer out of the box compared to a whole lot of users that just blindly copy-paste stuff from the internet, adding random dependencies without proper due diligence, etc. These tools might actually help users acting more secure.
I'm honestly more worried about all the other problems these tools create. Vibe coded problems scale fast. And businesses have still not understood that code is not an asset, it's a liability. Ideally, you solve your business problems with zero lines of code. Code is not expensive to write, it's expensive to maintain.
(1) https://www.promptarmor.com/resources/google-antigravity-exf... (2) https://antigravity.google/docs/secure-mode
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#33These prompt injection vulnerabilities give me the heebie jeebies. LLMs feel so non deterministic that it appears to me to be really hard to guard against. Can someone with experience in the area tell me if I'm off base?
Determinism is one thing, but the more pressing thing is permission boundaries. All these AI agent tools need to come with no permissions at all out of the box, and everything should be granularly granted. But that would break all the cool demos and marketing pitches. Allowing agent to run wild with any arbitrary shell commands is just plain stupid. This should never happen to begin with.
I think quite opposite, agents need to come with all permissions possible, highlighting that it's actually the OS responsibility to constrain it.
It's kind of dumb to except a process to constrain itself.
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#34I'm not saying IBM shouldn't try, but really – why is IBM building coding CLIs? They're like the company version of the Steve Buscemi "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme.
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#35I'm not saying IBM shouldn't try, but really – why is IBM building coding CLIs? They're like the company version of the Steve Buscemi "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme.
Part of the problem here is all the vendor lock in with the tools. It's a new category so it's to be expected, but currently any company that sells an enterprise cloud platform kind of needs their own AI coding tool suite to be competitive.
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#36Also a bit annoyed there's no date on the article, but looking at the HTML source it seems it was released today (isn't it annoying when blog software doesn't show the publish date?).
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#37These prompt injection vulnerabilities give me the heebie jeebies. LLMs feel so non deterministic that it appears to me to be really hard to guard against. Can someone with experience in the area tell me if I'm off base?
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#38Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#39These prompt injection vulnerabilities give me the heebie jeebies. LLMs feel so non deterministic that it appears to me to be really hard to guard against. Can someone with experience in the area tell me if I'm off base?
If someone can write instructions to download a malicious script into an codebase, hoping an AI agent will read and follow them, they could just as easily write the same wget command directly into a build script or the source itself (probably more effective). In that way it's a very similar threat to the supply chain attacks we're hopefully already familiar with. So it is a serious issue but not necessarily one we do…
Re: IBM AI ('Bob') Downloads and Executes Malware
#40These prompt injection vulnerabilities give me the heebie jeebies. LLMs feel so non deterministic that it appears to me to be really hard to guard against. Can someone with experience in the area tell me if I'm off base?
Determinism is one thing, but the more pressing thing is permission boundaries. All these AI agent tools need to come with no permissions at all out of the box, and everything should be granularly granted. But that would break all the cool demos and marketing pitches. Allowing agent to run wild with any arbitrary shell commands is just plain stupid. This should never happen to begin with.
That's what the tools already do. if you were watching some cool demo that didnt have all the prompts they may have been running the tools in "yolo mode" which is not usually a normal thing.