6 ms·

Thanks for looking in-depth in our post. The Hitachi RTU500 mention is not an hallucination, we did check for those. It is mentioned in the Mandiant threat inte

Thanks for looking in-depth in our post. The Hitachi RTU500 mention is not an hallucination, we did check for those. It is mentioned in the Mandiant threat intelligence data.

infoSecer 1y ago
Have you considered that Mandiant is wrong? I cannot find any evidence that it would be vulnerable. Hitachi doesn't even appear to be a technology partner of Palo Alto (https://technologypartners.paloaltonetworks.com/English/directory?q=Hitachi https://technologypartners.paloaltonetworks.com/English/dire...). As far as I can tell, the only connection between those is, that CISA released this alert which mentions multiple unrelated advisories in one post. Which happens to be the Siemens Palo Alto and another unrelated Hitachi advisory in RTU500: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2024/04/25/cisa-releases-eight-industrial-control-systems-advisories https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2024/04/25/cisa-rele...
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  Isn't the tool doing its job in that case? I wouldn't generally expect it to independently determine that an otherwise reliable source made a mistake. In fact I feel like that would be a really bad idea. Imagine if a relatively clueless intern left something out of a report because the textbook "seemed wrong".
  - infoSecer 1y ago
    I don't really know what its job is to be honest. Saying that the input data is wrong and the AI didn't hallucinate that data is also kind of a "trust me bro" statement. The Mandiant feed is not public, so I cannot check what was fed to it. I don't really care why its wrong. It is wrong. And using that as the example prompt in your announcement is an interesting choice.