Again, I’m not disagreeing that you can use LLMs to audit all these things. All I’m saying is that software is by far the easiest place to apply models and actually try out exploits end to end.
I believe your intent. Reponses before your clarification are justified in operating under a general cybersecurity definition, not one tied only to a narrower scope of just software.
Claiming context is obvious is flawed.
Obvious is a local term.
It may have been obvious to you, it was not obvious from the statement itself.
Your internal context should not be treated as globally shared context.
That was not obvious to me. LLMs have been used for finding hardware, firmware, RF, software, and social exploits.
RAM side-channel attacks are a good example of software exploits that are harder to exploit than find the vulnerability.
Sure, you can do all that as well, but the context is an article about cyber security.
Cybersecurity includes finding hardware, firmware, RF, software, and social exploits.
Again, I’m not disagreeing that you can use LLMs to audit all these things. All I’m saying is that software is by far the easiest place to apply models and actually try out exploits end to end.
Your original comment was:
Yes, and as I’ve repeatedly clarified here, I was making that statment in the context of software.
That context was not paired with the original comment.
And then it’s been clarified to you over and over in this thread.
I believe your intent. Reponses before your clarification are justified in operating under a general cybersecurity definition, not one tied only to a narrower scope of just software.
Claiming context is obvious is flawed. Obvious is a local term. It may have been obvious to you, it was not obvious from the statement itself.
Your internal context should not be treated as globally shared context.