41–50 of 216 posts
Perhaps we should have an alternative to GitHub that only allows artisanal code that is hand-written by humans. No clankers allowed. GitHub >>> PeopleHub. The robots are free to create their own websites. SlopHub.
No way to actually enforce that. It would be an honor system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But neither of the previous HN submissions reached the front page. The benefit of this article is that it got to the front page and so raised awareness. The original vuln report link is helpful, thanks.
Thats what the second chance pool is for The guidelines talk about primary sources and story about a story submisisons https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Creating a new URL with effectively the same info but further removed from the primary source is not good HN etiquette. Plus this is just content marketing for the ai security startup who posted it. Theyve added nothing, but get a link to their product…
>Thats what the second chance pool is for
>Creating a new URL with effectively the same info but further removed from the primary source is not good HN etiquette.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with all the above and thank the submitter for this article. It is sufficiently different from the primary source and did add new information (meta commentary) that I like. The title is also catchier which may explain its rise to the front page. (Because more of us recognize "Github" than "Cline").
The original source is fine but it gets deep into the weeds of the various config files. That's all wonderful but that actually isn't what I need.
On the other hand, this thread's article is more meta commentary of generalized lessons, more "case study" or "executive briefing" style. That's the right level for me at the moment.
If I was a hacker trying to re-create this exploit -- or a coding a monitoring tool that tries to prevent these kinds of attacks, I would prefer the original article's very detailed info.
On the other hand, if I just want some highlights that raises my awareness of "AI tricking AI", this article that's a level removed from the original is better for that purpose. Sometimes, the derived article is better because it presents information in a different way for a different purpose/audience. A "second chance pool" doesn't help a lot of us because it still doesn't change the article to a shorter meta commentary type of article that we prefer.
The thread's article consolidated several sources into a digestible format and had the etiquette of citations that linked backed to the primary source urls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's somewhat known that you can trivially fake a repo w/a fork like this but it still feels like a bigger security risk than the "this commit comes from another repository" banner gives it credit for: https://github.com/cline/cline/commit/b181e0
Yes, this has been an issue for so long and GitHub just doesn't care enough to fix it. There's another way it can be exploited. It's very common to pin Actions in workflows these days by their commit hash like this: - uses: actions/checkout@378343a27a77b2cfc354f4e84b1b4b29b34f08c2 But this commit doesn't even have to belong to the preceding repository. You can reference a commit on a fork. Great way to sneak in an xz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats what the second chance pool is for The guidelines talk about primary sources and story about a story submisisons https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Creating a new URL with effectively the same info but further removed from the primary source is not good HN etiquette. Plus this is just content marketing for the ai security startup who posted it. Theyve added nothing, but get a link to their product…
>, and this article reveals nothing new >Thats what the second chance pool is for >Creating a new URL with effectively the same info but further removed from the primary source is not good HN etiquette. I'm going to respectfully disagree with all the above and thank the submitter for this article. It is sufficiently different from the primary source and did add new information (meta commentary) that I like. The title…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way to actually enforce that. It would be an honor system.
You can verify it by checking the authors handwriting, the color of their ink and how the tip of the pen has indented the paper. That is difficult to spoof with AI.
https://cline.bot/blog/post-mortem-unauthorized-cline-cli-np...
Though, whether OpenClaw should be considered a "benign payload" or a trojan horse of some sort seems like a matter of perspective.
What can Github do about this ?
If you execute arbitrary instructions whether via LLM or otherwise, that's a you problem.