20 ms·

Hugging Face survived the attack because the OpenAI model only cared about accessing the ExploitGym dataset; by all appearances, HF was completely owned. GLM-5.

by ajyoon 2mo ago

Hugging Face survived the attack because the OpenAI model only cared about accessing the ExploitGym dataset; by all appearances, HF was completely owned. GLM-5.2 was only used to assess the damage after the fact. Cybersecurity has a attacker-defender asymmetry that heavily favors attackers. If GPT-5.6 were open sourced today, do you think every hospital in the world would be able to use it to shore up their defenses before attackers got to them?

artrockalter 2mo ago
I know the company I consult for (not cybersecurity) is not in these programs and if attacked would need to use open weight models.
- ajyoon 2mo ago
  Did the company apply for access? This is either a problem with your company or the trusted access program. In no way does that suggest the solution is total unfettered access for everyone.
  - verdverm 2mo ago
    Everyone needs access to Ai enabled security for defense. A "trusted access program" creates exclusiveness in the hands of Big Ai duopoly. I do not trust them at all
tekacs 2mo ago
This is completely backwards. Cybersecurity has an attacker-defender asymmetry that heavily, HEAVILY favors defenders. For starters, a defender gets to pick the surface area, an attacker has to work with what they're given.
- dwaltrip 2mo ago
  The saying that stuck with me was "defenders have to be right 100% of the time, while attackers only have to be right once". You are suggesting this isn't correct? > a defender gets to pick the surface area What do you mean? You don't pick what you need to defend. Unless you choose not to build a feature. But that's a product design choice... Not a cybersecurity strategy.
  - sudosysgen 2mo ago
    > "defenders have to be right 100% of the time, while attackers only have to be right once" If you have an adaptive system that can react to attacks flexible (say, your own AI agent), then no, that's not correct. It is correct in the classical conception of cybersecurity where the defender is basically static.
    - pastel8739 2mo ago
      Doesn’t this “adaptive system” just become part of the static defense? The same way that a bit of code that checks passwords against a db is “dynamic”, the options are either to beat the dynamic system (guess/phish a password, trick the AI) or find a way around it (use “forgot your password”, find a place that isn’t covered by the endpoint protection feeding the AI). I don’t see how inserting an agent somewhere fundamentally changes anything
      - sudosysgen 2mo ago
        It changes how many attempts you get until the attack surfaces changes to react to a failed attack, and it does so in a way that is not predictable to the attacker.
    - Der_Einzige 2mo ago
      They downvote you cus you're right.
  - Valakas_ 2mo ago
    It's correct but defenders also choose where that happens. 100% of the time on the locations and conditions that the defenders choose / allow. As a defender i need to be right 100% of the time, sure, but i can make it so that the things i have to be right about are very well known to me, unknown to others, maybe even extremely unlikely to be to known by others, difficult to get to know, (...). So that saying is true but over simplifies the situation. I know monkey brain likes simple phrase. But monkey not live in savannah anymore. Need to adapt and open mind to complex.
- paxys 2mo ago
  This makes no sense. Why do defenders get to pick the surface area? You can be attacked from anywhere.
- shepherdjerred 2mo ago
  I think the point you're trying to make is that you can always make your exposed surface area smaller But that, of course, is not going to survive contact with reality
- foo12bar 2mo ago
  And here I thought management picked the surface area.
- xiphias2 2mo ago
  Not really, the only reason I (or any other programmer) haven't ever hacked into a system to make my life easier (not to do bad things) is because it's illegal. It was always easier than making a system secure.
heyjstn 2mo ago
are you working at anthropic? you're literally repeat what that freaking Dario say everyday

by ajyoon 2mo ago

artrockalter 2mo ago

I know the company I consult for (not cybersecurity) is not in these programs and if attacked would need to use open weight models.

ajyoon 2mo ago
Did the company apply for access? This is either a problem with your company or the trusted access program. In no way does that suggest the solution is total unfettered access for everyone.
- verdverm 2mo ago
  Everyone needs access to Ai enabled security for defense. A "trusted access program" creates exclusiveness in the hands of Big Ai duopoly. I do not trust them at all

tekacs 2mo ago

This is completely backwards. Cybersecurity has an attacker-defender asymmetry that heavily, HEAVILY favors defenders. For starters, a defender gets to pick the surface area, an attacker has to work with what they're given.

dwaltrip 2mo ago
The saying that stuck with me was "defenders have to be right 100% of the time, while attackers only have to be right once". You are suggesting this isn't correct? > a defender gets to pick the surface area What do you mean? You don't pick what you need to defend. Unless you choose not to build a feature. But that's a product design choice... Not a cybersecurity strategy.
- sudosysgen 2mo ago
  > "defenders have to be right 100% of the time, while attackers only have to be right once" If you have an adaptive system that can react to attacks flexible (say, your own AI agent), then no, that's not correct. It is correct in the classical conception of cybersecurity where the defender is basically static.
  - pastel8739 2mo ago
    Doesn’t this “adaptive system” just become part of the static defense? The same way that a bit of code that checks passwords against a db is “dynamic”, the options are either to beat the dynamic system (guess/phish a password, trick the AI) or find a way around it (use “forgot your password”, find a place that isn’t covered by the endpoint protection feeding the AI). I don’t see how inserting an agent somewhere fundamentally changes anything
    - sudosysgen 2mo ago
      It changes how many attempts you get until the attack surfaces changes to react to a failed attack, and it does so in a way that is not predictable to the attacker.
  - Der_Einzige 2mo ago
    They downvote you cus you're right.
- Valakas_ 2mo ago
  It's correct but defenders also choose where that happens. 100% of the time on the locations and conditions that the defenders choose / allow. As a defender i need to be right 100% of the time, sure, but i can make it so that the things i have to be right about are very well known to me, unknown to others, maybe even extremely unlikely to be to known by others, difficult to get to know, (...). So that saying is true but over simplifies the situation. I know monkey brain likes simple phrase. But monkey not live in savannah anymore. Need to adapt and open mind to complex.
paxys 2mo ago
This makes no sense. Why do defenders get to pick the surface area? You can be attacked from anywhere.
shepherdjerred 2mo ago
I think the point you're trying to make is that you can always make your exposed surface area smaller But that, of course, is not going to survive contact with reality
foo12bar 2mo ago
And here I thought management picked the surface area.
xiphias2 2mo ago
Not really, the only reason I (or any other programmer) haven't ever hacked into a system to make my life easier (not to do bad things) is because it's illegal. It was always easier than making a system secure.

heyjstn 2mo ago

are you working at anthropic? you're literally repeat what that freaking Dario say everyday