Reproducing here an interesting comment I saw on Reddit:

OnlineParacosm • 23m ago

I’ve read security disclosures for 15 years and let me tell you guys I’ve never read anything quite like that blog post.

Based on this blog, it sounds like they intentionally turned off safety guardrails to test offensive capabilities. The deception here is burying the lede: they appear to have intentionally unleashed an unrestricted offensive cyber-agent, connected it to a system with a path to the internet, and it immediately attacked a major partner. The blog glosses over the gross negligence of giving an autonomous, unrestricted cyber-offense model a pathway to lateral movement.

There’s an entire cybersecurity specialization just for just vendor supply chain risk assessment, and their job is essentially to audit who you do business with as a company to determine if they are jokers. I would pay money to be a fly on the wall of one of those emergency meetings taking place right now after hours.

Any CISO in here looking forward to explaining this one tomorrow? Here I’ll open with the dumbest question you’ll get “ how can we protect ourselves [from out partner that we won’t fire]”

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    It’s trivial for models to find zero days now from first principles, no need to store them

    • undefinedValue@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Trivial is a strong word, but sure it’s trivial during static analysis. This is dynamic analysis and it’s a different beast.