• A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

      And no-skilled attackers can buy exploits.

      Claude helping is insignificant to the story.

      The real headline should be:

      At least 14 companies’ IT security is practically non-existent

    • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Didn’t think I’d ever side with no script kiddie but at this point fuck it.
      If your company can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum in security then yeah I hope the least skilled hacker ever comes along and wrecks it.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Thing is, with the latest frontier models, the least skilled person can find a crack in the most secure company around, as long as they can string a few sentences together.

        It isn’t about “bare minimum” anymore. All it takes is a single lapse in vigilance from a single employee, and they’re in… and the LLM doesn’t have to pause to figure out what to do next.

          • Mika@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 minutes ago

            some hacker unleashes malicious AIs to the internet, breaking it apart cause AI keeps finding vulnerabilities in everything and break things faster than humans can fix

            corporates build corporate internet and the blackwall, which is AI to fight malicious AIs

            Gooooood morning Night City!

          • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Yeah, but an LLM’s arms race isn’t “doing the bare minimum in security”, which is what the poster before was saying.

            This is a genuine concern, where whoever has access to the best/most recent/most expensive models can unleash chaos - I’m talking state-sponsored attacks, mega-corp espionage, bored billionaires,…

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Only for a year or so. Any company still vulnerable after these tools have been out long enough deserve it.

      • Andrew Beveridge@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Most people on lemmy seem to condemn use of LLMs in any way for anything, I wonder what those folks opinion of this stance is - should companies use the tools or not?

        • village604@adultswim.fan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Cybersecurity is actually one of the few fields that can benefit from AI. There are companies like Horizon3 who are using it alongside their other threat models to do continuous pen testing.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 minutes ago

            Gonna take a guess here that what is used in cybersecurity is not LLMs but one of the more useful machine learning applications. Just a nitpick cause today “ai” and “LLM” are sadly synonymous.

          • Chronographs@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Yeah imo the one thing ai is legitimately useful for is finding answers to difficult problems that can be trivially verified as correct.

        • DeadDigger@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Well the problem is that for example curl got flooded with generated security reports where only 5% had some true security potential. So your llm will basically flood you with false positives

          • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            If 5% of the reports are genuine security vulnerabilities that they wouldn’t have found otherwise, that’s looking like a big win to me, not sure how you see it differently.

            • frongt@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              The problem is identifying which 5%. Nobody wants to filter that much AI slop.

              • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                If you’re working for a company’s cybersec, that’s your job. And a much preferable one to waiting for an attacker to do it for you.