71–80 of 140 posts
unfortunately a little light on the details. I'm very curious how the bug survived through MTE
LLMs are going to produce amazing Rube Goldberg style vulnerabilities for years to come. It's already starting, this instance isn't the case, but it's happening.
The world is so not ready for the impact of LLMs on security issues. If true, congrats to the Calif team. It’s likely too technical for me to understand in details but looking forward to reading the 55 pages report
> The world is so not ready for the impact of LLMs on security issues. I agree, but it's the people I'm worried about. I'm hearing anecdotes from all over about devs pushing LLM-generated code changes into production without retaining any knowledge of what it is they're pushing. The changes compound, their understanding of the codebase diminishes, and so the actions become risker. What's worse is a lot of this behavi…
I don’t think so.
An LLM can produce higher-quality documentation than most humans. If it's not already happening, when a new developer joins a team, they're going to have an LLM produce any documentation a new developer needs, including why certain decisions were made.
It could also summarize years of email threads and code reviews that, let's face it, a new person wouldn’t be able to ingest anyway; it's not like a new developer gets to take a week off to get caught up on everything that happened before they got there. English not their first language? Well, the LLM can present the information in virtually any language required.
As the models continue to improve, they'll spot patterns in the code that a human wouldn’t be able to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The gamble is that you can cruise on the senior engineer’s diminishing understanding for a few years until models become good enough that you don’t need any humans in the loop and you can fire all those expensive seniors.
The tragedy is having a bunch of those senior engineers writing blog posts and what not of how productive they are, without realising that it means business now needs less of them.
LLMs are going to produce amazing Rube Goldberg style vulnerabilities for years to come. It's already starting, this instance isn't the case, but it's happening.
LLMs are going to produce amazing Rube Goldberg style vulnerabilities for years to come. It's already starting, this instance isn't the case, but it's happening.
Maybe it's physically impossible to build a theoretically secure system, just as it's (presumably) impossible to have a cell that isn't susceptible to any virus. Maybe this whole time we've been getting away with a type of security by obscurity, where the obscurity is just no one having the time and focus to actually analyze the code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've got a guy (who they're considering laying off)
in my experience they have a person who does it sometimes when they have time, at best
LLMs are going to produce amazing Rube Goldberg style vulnerabilities for years to come. It's already starting, this instance isn't the case, but it's happening.
Maybe it's physically impossible to build a theoretically secure system, just as it's (presumably) impossible to have a cell that isn't susceptible to any virus. Maybe this whole time we've been getting away with a type of security by obscurity, where the obscurity is just no one having the time and focus to actually analyze the code.
1. Any given system has a finite number of findable vulnerabilities.
2. All findable vulnerabilities are fixable (if not in software then with a new hardware revision).
3. Fixing a vulnerability while keeping the same intended functionality introduces on average less than 1 other findable vulnerability.
4. It is possible to cease adding new features to a system and from that point forward only focus on fixing vulnerabilities.
If all 4 are true, then perfect security seems possible, in some sense. I think some vulnerabilities might not be fixable, if you include things like the idea that users can be tricked into revealing their passwords. If you restrict the definition of vulnerability to some narrower meaning that still captures most of what people mean when they say computer vulnerability, then I think those 4 statements are probably true.
Perfect security might be near impossible in practice because vulnerabilities will get more difficult to find and fix over time, but I think we should expect the discovery of vulnerabilities to eventually become arbitrarily slow in a hypothetical system that prioritized security above all else.
LLMs are going to produce amazing Rube Goldberg style vulnerabilities for years to come. It's already starting, this instance isn't the case, but it's happening.
Maybe it's physically impossible to build a theoretically secure system, just as it's (presumably) impossible to have a cell that isn't susceptible to any virus. Maybe this whole time we've been getting away with a type of security by obscurity, where the obscurity is just no one having the time and focus to actually analyze the code.
If you imagine you had a vulnerability scanner as fast and convenient as a linter, it would be much cheaper to write secure code right away. Probably not perfectly secure, but still secure enough to make sure finding exploits stays expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tragedy is having a bunch of those senior engineers writing blog posts and what not of how productive they are, without realising that it means business now needs less of them.
I suppose that if you don’t believe that models will be good enough to work completely without senior engineer help, positioning yourself as a master prompter is a good move to improve your chances of not getting fired.
Will we now have leetcode of prompt writing?