Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

github.com

301–310 of 407 posts

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need our infrastructure to stop treating bank account numbers and social security numbers as secrets. At least in the US, bank account numbers appear on physical checks and are required to be shared in order to do an ACH transfer, and a social security number is not supposed to be used as an identifier (unless to the Social Security Administration itself) or as a secret password. Ideally, nothing nefarious should…

Hang on, can you actually do something nefarious with just the bank account number?

Yes and no. Yes, theoretically you can initiate ACH transfer with just the account number. But practically, you will need to have a bank that would allow you to do that and agree to be on the hook if the transfer is going to be reversed. Which means if you are a criminal who wants to do it systematically at scale, you have to be big enough to have your own licensed pocket bank. Which is not a service available to a random criminal. Of course, a random criminal could forge a check with your numbers and cash it, but the account owner would rarely be on the hook for the funds, it's whoever agreed to cash the check. It can cause significant annoyance and inconvenience to the real owner of the account (including having to change account number and all accompanied legwork) but rarely results in funds actually being removed from the rightful owner. The banks prefer this system to the alternatives even with the risk of fraud.

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#302
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving out apostrophes isn't the same though, is it? If you leave out apostrophes you have syntactic effects while a (sortof)dash is still sort of a dash?

Its not exactly the same, of course, but its pretty analogous. It’s a minor, technically incorrect change that doesnt change meaning or understandability most of the time. Ive left out a bunch of apostrophes in this paragraph and Im pretty sure nobody will have a hard time understanding any of it. Yet it would bug me to actually write like this.

I don't know how this works nowadays but when I got taught to write (the pencil and paper kind) and specifically when I got taught syntax, it was "if you want to introduce a clause that explains or expands upon something that precedes it, you draw a small horizontal line" no mention of special chars, Unicode or whatsoever. So why is it so special other than being authors fancy?

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#304
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

silly specific: the minus sign is a separate character. The dash equivalent is the en dash (–), versus the larger em (—) and smaller hyphen (-). The en dash is also used in things like scores (3–2 Turkey), votes (the bill passed 58–42), or connecting words where the second part is longer than one word (the Australia–New Zealand alliance.) You can remember the latter as, "a hyphen isn't big and strong enough to hold o…

My first language is Dutch (Flemish). I didn’t even know there were three different dashes. The em dash is something I didn’t know exist, or were used, until llms came about. The hyphen is something we use when we make a list, that’s just the minus symbol right? So em dashes are for pauses or highlighting things I guess? The en dash you explained in your reaction. Is there any other use for the hyphen except for maki…

There aren't three different dashes. Unicode 15.0, table 6-3 (Unicode Dash Characters) lists 25 different dashes. https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch06.pdf#G612...

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be an em-dash user, but now my opinion is that I’d rather be perceived as someone who does not want to be confused with an LLM. So I’ve changed my writing style.

My feeling is that my writing doesn't sound anything like an LLM, so if someone thinks I'm an LLM because I used an em-dash, that's on them. That, or I royally screwed up and need to do a better job as a writer. At least with today's LLMs.

hmm maybe if we wait longer, LLMs will learnt to be like "none-em-dashers", and we "em-dashers" will prevail?

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are those for? The people who want to see the people doing bestiality punished

I don't want to "see" any of it...

In "see (something) punished" you are seeing (making sure it happens) the "punishing", not "something".

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#307
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not exactly the same, of course, but its pretty analogous. It’s a minor, technically incorrect change that doesnt change meaning or understandability most of the time. Ive left out a bunch of apostrophes in this paragraph and Im pretty sure nobody will have a hard time understanding any of it. Yet it would bug me to actually write like this.

I don't know how this works nowadays but when I got taught to write (the pencil and paper kind) and specifically when I got taught syntax, it was "if you want to introduce a clause that explains or expands upon something that precedes it, you draw a small horizontal line" no mention of special chars, Unicode or whatsoever. So why is it so special other than being authors fancy?

[deleted]

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#308
post #30

There is going to be a flurry of this sort of stuff as the AIs get smart enough to find them. It will naturally die down as the legitimate ones are fixed. Yes, there will always be some level of this, but I’d expect it to be low and the exploits found to be increasingly complex. This is a time of transition.

I actually do not expect it to die down: as legitimate ones get fixed, LLM-based tools will continue finding other unfixed non-issues repeatedly, and overeager "researchers" will continue reporting them.

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#309
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a flurry of this sort of stuff as the AIs get smart enough to find them. I really think this characterization is misleading. It's not "getting smart", only more tailored toward a specific usage, better curated dataset, better harness, better prompts, better labeling of results, documentation of failures and success, etc. The outcome is (hopefully) overall better but this anthropomorphized wording makes it sound lik…

Do you have a definition of "smart" such that there is something an AI could do to prove itself intelligent? Or are you just defining "fast" as something only horses can do, and considering that a useful insight about cars?

Long-term memory, for one. (reliving your entire life every time you do an action isn't memory). Creativity in new areas without training. Children at school are capable of "discovering" math solutions/methods that are known to others but hasn't been taught to them.

There's nothing intelligent about a math processor, even if it's automated.

Re: Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such claims can both be true and pointless. For those of us who have to decide what actions to take, there is a point in differentiating between bugs and vulnerabilities, and breathlessly proclaiming "we found a vulnerability but we don't have an exploitation vector or proof that there's a meaningful security consequence" is annoying and likely to get the proclaimer ignored in the future.

The context in which that statement was made, and in which I’m repeating it, I think, is just to say that any bug has the potential to be used maliciously. Ignore it, fine, but also don’t overreact to the intended message…

It is mostly meaningless and tautological claim: even every non-buggy feature of a software system has the potential to be used maliciously; a working system itself too.

Yes, maliciously used features should sometimes drive change (eg. in how to reduce or reduce impact of social engineering attacks), but as a claim it has no value.

Post reply on HN