staticassertion

6 ms·

1. 211.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   I could easily see this as a case where the team had a legacy area of code in a language that no one was familiar with anymore so no one felt great about actually contributing to it, so it languished, and now AI let them go "fuck it, l
2. 212.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   PyPI is pretty best-in-class here and I think that they should be seen as the example for others to pursue. The client side tooling needs work, but that's a major effort in and of itself.
3. 213.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   I assume they think that the AI is fundamentally capable of it but that by prompting it they trigger something emergent? It's not totally insane on its face.
4. 214.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   I suspect that there are many gambling addicts out there who have never been to a casino, or who found gamblings in its traditional forms aesthetically off-putting. These same people, when presented with gambling in other forms like what we
5. 215.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   Ah, yes. I totally agree with that and wish that's how people built software.
6. 216.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   I feel like we're just talking about different things? I've just said that I'm aware of apps being sandboxed, that does not mean that some random program you run from your terminal is sandboxed.
7. 217.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   They're suggesting that the attacker is in a position to `docker run`. Any attacker in that position has privesc to root, trivially. Rootless mode requires unprivileged user namespaces, disabled on almost any distribution because it&#x
8. 218.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   Sorry, I suppose I'm asking for a lot of handholding here, which isn't really fair. I'm actually just sick right now and have crazy brain fog. Thanks for the assistance! I'll read through. FWIW I've wavered on this
9. 219.▲
   by staticassertion 6mo ago

   Where?
10. 220.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Privesc is trivial on every desktop OS if you run as a regular user. I can write to your rc files so it's game over. App Store apps are the exception, which is great, but presumably we're not talking about that? If we are, then ye
11. 221.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    I'm not going to code review your sandbox project for you.
12. 222.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Okay, so you're using docker. Cool, that's one of the only x-plat ways to get any sandboxing. Docker itself is privileged and now any unsandboxed program on your computer can trivially escalate to root. It also doesn't limit
13. 223.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    > If the whole point of sandboxing is to not trust the software, it doesn't make sense for the software to do the sandboxing. That's true, sort of. I mean, that isn't the whole point of sandboxing because the threat model
14. 224.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    How are you setting that sandbox up? I've laid out numerous constraints - x-platform support is non-existent for sandboxing, sandboxing requires privileges to perform, whole-program sandboxing is fundamentally weaker, maintenance of sa
15. 225.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    What would be really helpful is if software sandboxed itself. It's very painful to sandbox software from the outside and it's radically less effective because your sandbox is always maximally permissive. But, sadly, there's n
16. 226.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    This is great observational data but it's an early "step 1", I'd definitely need to see an actual analysis of these cases and likely want to have that analysis involve a review of relevant training data.
17. 227.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Oh. Yeah, that's neat at least. I don't think it's a big deal but that's nice enough.
18. 228.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    I assume this is all of the pains of going from "GHA is sorta kinda on Azure", which was a bad state, to "GHA is going full Azure", which is a painful state to get to but presumably simplifies things.
19. 229.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Can you explain the auth part? I feel like auth for an agent is largely a matter of either verifying its context or issuing it a JWT that's scoped to its rights, which I assume is quite similar to how any tools would work. But I'm
20. 230.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    That's true, but it seems far more complex than just moving trivy to a separate workerflow with no permissions and likely physical isolation between it and a credential. I'm pretty wary of the idea that malware couldn't just
21. 231.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Emergent behavior would imply that some other function was being reduced to token prediction. Behaving "better than random" ie: not just brute forcing would not qualify - token prediction is not brute forcing and we expect it to d
22. 232.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    I'm open to hearing how you think I should be interpreting things. I don't really think I'm being too literal, it certainly hasn't been the case that they've suggested my interpretation is wrong, and I've provi
23. 233.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    That's exactly what a sandbox is designed for. I think you're overly constraining your view of what sort of sandboxing can exist. You can, for example, sandbox code such that it can't do anything but read/write to a spec
24. 234.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    In frontend-land you can sort of do this by loading dependencies in iframe sandboxes. In backend, ur fucked.
25. 235.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    I'm not sure how. Their local system seems just as likely to get compromised through a `pip install` or whatever else. In CI they could easily have moved `trivy` to its own dedicated worker that had no access to the PYPI secret, which
26. 236.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Thanks, this is great and I'll have quite a bit to read here. > people like to move goalposts whenever a new result comes out, which is silly. Could AI systems do this 2 years ago? No. I don’t know how people don’t look at robust tr
27. 237.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    I've wanted brew to be faster. It would be a nice QoL for me.
28. 238.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    They're shocked that people believe that humans are unique. I explained why that shouldn't be shocking. I think I was pretty charitable here, I gave an alternative option for what they could mean in my very first reply: > Unl
29. 239.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    First of all, that's not true. Not every position has to be empirically justified. I can reason about a position in all sorts of ways without testing. Here's an obvious example that requires no test at all: 1. Functional propertie
30. 240.▲
    by staticassertion 6mo ago

    Indeed, but it hardly seems controversial or major. It's sort of just an extension of existing syntax, similar to `impl Trait` in argument position.