I thought they made a strong case for removing the additional 30 day patch rollout time. But reducing the entire process to 30 days total seems needlessly harsh and I didn't think it was justified by the article at all. What if the bug is actually inherently hard to fix?
That would be the problem of the people running the software, not writing it.
Considering the direction software and their exploits are going with AI, if 30 days is insufficient in 2028 then that's useful signal to the people running that they should move elsewhere.
You should not connect a service maintained by individuals in their free time to the public internet. Put it behind a VPN or local network only and then you don’t have to worry.
Delaying disclosures is a false sense of security when the attackers are running the same scans Google is. They will have exploits faster than 30 days.
This is the kind of thinking that in the 90s would have kept the internet exclusive to the domains of university and government. Every new technology has risks and people adapt. In the early part of the 20th century we might as well have kept cars away from private citizens and relegated transportation to buses, trains and professional drivers. Need private transportation? Use a horse. What with the number of people killed and maimed every year it's just not worth it. Take away our keys and mandate public transportation please.
lol, and if its in a widespread library in an embedded device? Thanks for compromising the internet, aka there is a tension inherent, not that i disagree with policy and the forcing function underneath, but it is quite a different perspective for non corporate projects.
If you have an embedded device connected to the Internet that doesn’t get updates and has vulnerabilities that can be picked up by LLMs then you need to unplug it.
That is the world we live in now and pretending otherwise is reckless and leads to mass hacking like the recent supermarket fridge hacking.
Only devices and applications that can respond to security reports quickly should be connected to the internet.
Lots and lots of devices are gonna get turned into botnets and tons of personal information is going to get leaked. However both of those things are already true.
Constant attacks mean the future will hopefully see local-first devices that don't need software at all.
Want to put them on the internet? They go behind gateways which are better maintained, because a world where every teenager can hack a vending machine through its vestigial Bluetooth stack would finally need to be secure to function.
This is ridiculous. Vulnerabilities dont mean severity of damage and risk assessment is better made by individuals themselves. If you're afraid of botnets get a firewall. But go ahead and mandate this. Let's do it. Better yet, let's require the registeration of all unable to be patched devices and give the government the right to smash those devices if they don't get updates. That's the world I want to live in.
Crowdstrike was a good example of why you should never allow global updates to roll out all at once , even for configuration changes.
Cloudflare has learnt the same lesson recently https://blog.cloudflare.com/18-november-2025-outage/
Bug fix speed isn’t particularly relevant, rollout speed is.
Two week rollouts are insane. Three days, in the vast majority of contexts, is generous.
I hate to see slow rollouts. The single best thing you can do for fighting bugs is to roll out with canaries; weekslong rollouts only make sense when someone actually has to be in the middle of a cursed release while it runs.
If there's a bug in your code and it's rare there isn't much disruption. If it's not rare, why didn't your tests catch it?
You're both missing the point. The actual issue is llm exploit generation. If they can find it, so can other bad actors. We can't sit on issues anymore the time to exploit is now tiny or negative in some cases.
Every piece of software you have ever used almost certainly has critical security vulnerabilities, right now, no matter how up to date it is. However, you don't know about them and neither does anyone else.
Obviously you can't prove that, but again, you can't prove that for literally any software you're using right now.
Let's say a bug hasn't been found for the past 20 years. Google finds it, but it's going to take longer than 30 days to fix. Is it really better to let everyone know about it after 30 days? If no one else has found it (true, as far as we know) in the past 20 years, what are the probabilities it will be found by a second person in the next few months?
You misunderstand - denying patches to downstream vendors improves financial security for Google.
But they actually did this to comply with the EU Cyber Resilience Act. When a patch is released, a legal clock starts ticking - anyone who doesn't apply it promptly is liable for any resulting damages.
Perhaps eventually, they can finally live up to their namesake. On January 1 2029, we will move to a "Full 0" policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after (looks at camera) zero days.
IMO the disclosure should ~day-two after there is a fix/workaround available
Releasing before that is non-actionable by many actors (aside from taking the service completely down I guess). Any time after fix is available is just allowing vulnerable systems to be attacked and is playing favourites with who gets fix and who doesn't
No, that's not what it means. It just means that the benefit must outweigh the risk, as always. Making surgical patches to existing code is also quite different to introducing features, which is what developers typically spend their time on. Not that same-day patching would imply literally zero time to review either.
That does not follow. Somebody stills needs to set it up. And maybe to sign off. The AI could instantly diagnose and summarize the problem and its remediation and you say the word.
The way you describe it puts the role of humans as merely decorarive and ceremonial. The work is done by AI and actually validated by AI too, and increasingly the role of the human is to give an ok to whatever the AI outputs
No, they're not - they can just release and wait for another vulnerability disclosure. Then the loop between [Vendors] and Project Zero needs no humans in it.
We can extrapolate from the last two years now that it's older than that. In 2024, although vibe coding hadn't been coined yet, AI was being used to autocomplete lines and functions with the tab key. Now it is autocompleting entire programs with a chat interface. In another two years it may be autocompleting whole projects with a neural interface.
If AI is doing all the work then why would remediation be needed at all? Why can't the software AI produces be vuln-free if the same AI is used to detect them?
Because LLMs are not deterministic or predictable and make mistakes that they are capable of fixing.
LLMs will write vulnerable code while the same model can find those vulnerabilities if you prompt it right. Some stats from a previous post was that the CVEs found in Linux were costing on average $1000 in api usage each. So having the LLM prevent writing vulnerabilities would explode the costs.
You talk as though there is one AI model that is perfect and capable of identifying all potential flaws with no mistakes or omissions, and that access is free and unlimited.
Project zero is run by Google, one of the few groups doing frontier models. If you consider their revenue streams, Google is the sole frontier player that can actually fund insane research and compute out of pocket without relying on any hype cycle.
So, Google will have some model that is much more powerful than the publicly available models. Before releasing it to the world, they can use it to mitigate any issue it discovers anywhere
Exactly. That's super irresponsible to knowingly release software that you haven't used AI to check if it had any vulns. There's zero (heh) excuse to release vulnerable software at that point.
Catching lots of bugs in software written with poor methodology is the new norm and that is not the same as releasing software that is not vulnerable. That is releasing software that needs increasing technological improvements or luck to
find remaining vulnerabilities.
Running trivy scans on my docker containers has really highlighted which projects keep up to date. I’ve been moving away from all the one person projects to more commercial offerings that keep on top of updates.
Of course I don’t expect a single person to work every day for free, but I also can’t have a project with only a single dev exposed to the internet.
Is this a version of extortion? Isn't this Google, a massive company with lots of power and control, forcing the prioritization of work on everyone under the guise of security? It's at least clearly a threat.
I agree with you. Google pretends that this is "donating security research to the community" and maybe it started like that, but it has been clear for some time that there is an element of bullying and abuse in the process that they are conveniently ignoring to be able to sleep better at night.
And Google has a vested interest in FFMPEG, because it uses it heavily to transcode and process videos. So they absolutely benefit from the work, for free.
Project Zero doesn't create the vulnerabilities, it finds them. Vendors want unlimited time to fix their bugs. Users want to know ASAP if the software they are running is vulnerable. These things are obviously in tension, so you need a deadline.
It's gotten easier finding vulnerabilities, so every day without disclosure now brings a higher chance that blackhats have already found the bug. The deadline gets shorter accordingly.
Calling vulnerability research "extortion" is the kind of ignorant messenger-blaming the hacker culture has always ridiculed.
You are ignoring the part of Project Zero that reports the vulnerability.
Neither the users nor the vendors chose the 90/60/30 day limit.
Google is making an active choice in the design of their reporting process, and that is something that is open to critique and in some sense liability.
Why is Google choosing to report unlimited number of bugs, but a different Google program will only pay to fix 3 bugs? (https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/open-source/patch-...) Why are not all Project Zero bugs exempt from that limit and awarded a minimum reward?
You directly called it "clearly a threat", and you indirectly called it plausibly extortion or else there would be no reason to ask if it's extortion.
But you need to explain on what general basis this even could be extortion.
And they're not "forcing the prioritization" of anything. They're just reporting bugs they found. They don't even need to warn the vendors at all if they don't want to.
What do you think Google is extorting from the publishers of insecure software - reduced security vulnerabilities? Or what is it that you think Google is actually after by doing this?
> guise of security
What do you think is the real motivation if not security?
Why does it take Google scale to address reported security vulnerabilities in a timely manner?
And if something is just a personal / hobby project that you don't want to support - that's also fine. Having the security vulnerability published just means people using it have a more realistic view of the situation.
This is sort of what I was getting at with my original post. I'm just curious as to the power dynamics here. Not everyone has $0.5 trillion in revenue every year.
It makes to hold out for disclosure if there's a pay day involved. Since this is Google, the bug bounty is not the issue. I say release right away. Nothing else will compel the company being reported on to fix otherwise.
I’m not familiar with this specific effort but it seems like the companies digging around for the bugs should also offer similar access to their products that discovered the vulnerabilities to the vendors or OSS projects to patch them. Otherwise vendors might use this as a leveraged approach to get people to adopt LLMs, specifically theirs, so their products remain reasonably attractive. Google, OpenAI, Anthropic etc could just turn on existing software as a strategy to get more adoption of their tools.
“Don’t like our constant stream of patches? For $10k/mo + tokens you can get access to the model to patch the vulnerabilities we disclose!”
How is it irrelevant? Just because an effort existed before some change, doesn’t mean it can be repurposed and leveraged for other purposes. It’s the entire reason law and policy for government isn’t set in stone and is adaptable, because culture, technology and so on change.
The dynamic in this context absolutely has changed. Marginal cost to discover vulnerabilities from AI frontier labs and the big players has dropped significantly. The cost to patch is low, if you have access to certain resources. If you don’t, tough luck.
So this argument is essentially against the entire argument of AI alignment guardrails right now. Maybe you disagree with those, but I for one am happy they’re doing some things to protect against bio related warfare engineering. This is a case of cyber that’s about grey. Even there the labs have limited access to some and are choosing winners.
Your argument makes complete sense if the tools that find a bug can automatically make a patch, but a vendor getting a thorough bug report can't make a patch with anywhere near the same amount of ease.
But that assumption is pretty crazy to me and your argument makes no sense to me.
For sure I would love to get access to P0 researchers for a m 10k/months, but i don’t believe you can hire such talent for this sum.
They are one of or maybe the most skilled security research team that’s doing public research and their blog is the source of many modern exploitation techniques
For a while, asking your agent to act like a P0 researcher was a nice nudge to find better bugs !
Usually you can’t find the kind of bugs P0 finds by just throwing AI at it. You need highly skilled people driving/guiding it. Highly skilled people are the bottleneck.
In any case it’d be sensible to make yourself familiar with the “specific effort” before you make up your opinion on it.
That's kinda the problem with asinine "safety" idea the AI moguls have.
It is just leaving people with less safe software. At least claude the limitations are actively preventing you from looking for security bugs in your own software
I mean, sure, the cited $10k / mo is exploitative for small open-source projects but... in general, why wouldn't we want there to be pressure on companies and projects to use high-quality LLM-based checks if they want to see wide adoption?
Starting today, our policy is “Full 90”, i.e. vulnerabilities will be disclosed 90 days after they are reported to the vendor.
On February 2, 2027, we will move to a “Full 60” policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after 60 days.
On January 3, 2028, we will move to a “Full 30” policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after 30 days.
WTF with a 30 days deadline in 2028?
I thought they made a strong case for removing the additional 30 day patch rollout time. But reducing the entire process to 30 days total seems needlessly harsh and I didn't think it was justified by the article at all. What if the bug is actually inherently hard to fix?
If the bug can’t be fixed in 30 days, the service should be disconnected from the internet until it can be fixed.
That is not how scale works.
Some (likely most) projects have just non-paid people working on it in their free time. That's the reality of open source.
Well if an attacker starts attacking things in the wild, you better find a way to address it in faster than 30 days.
That would be the problem of the people running the software, not writing it.
Considering the direction software and their exploits are going with AI, if 30 days is insufficient in 2028 then that's useful signal to the people running that they should move elsewhere.
Still is their problem either way. Who else's would it be?
> Well if an attacker starts attacking things in the wild, you better find a way to address it in faster than 30 days.
Not the maintainer's problem.
That's the company's problem that stole the code without contributing back in the first place.
You should not connect a service maintained by individuals in their free time to the public internet. Put it behind a VPN or local network only and then you don’t have to worry.
Delaying disclosures is a false sense of security when the attackers are running the same scans Google is. They will have exploits faster than 30 days.
This is the kind of thinking that in the 90s would have kept the internet exclusive to the domains of university and government. Every new technology has risks and people adapt. In the early part of the 20th century we might as well have kept cars away from private citizens and relegated transportation to buses, trains and professional drivers. Need private transportation? Use a horse. What with the number of people killed and maimed every year it's just not worth it. Take away our keys and mandate public transportation please.
People will adapt by updating stuff faster than 30 days, and by everything that doesn’t do that getting hacked.
great! so companies and individuals will get to learn this reality of open source.
a reality that has always been blatantly obvious, unless one only listened to its all too many zealots.
Then Google can just send a patch. What better marketing than that if you want to sell people on your periodic table AI.
lol, and if its in a widespread library in an embedded device? Thanks for compromising the internet, aka there is a tension inherent, not that i disagree with policy and the forcing function underneath, but it is quite a different perspective for non corporate projects.
If you have an embedded device connected to the Internet that doesn’t get updates and has vulnerabilities that can be picked up by LLMs then you need to unplug it.
That is the world we live in now and pretending otherwise is reckless and leads to mass hacking like the recent supermarket fridge hacking.
Only devices and applications that can respond to security reports quickly should be connected to the internet.
I (somewhat) agree.
Lots and lots of devices are gonna get turned into botnets and tons of personal information is going to get leaked. However both of those things are already true.
Constant attacks mean the future will hopefully see local-first devices that don't need software at all.
Want to put them on the internet? They go behind gateways which are better maintained, because a world where every teenager can hack a vending machine through its vestigial Bluetooth stack would finally need to be secure to function.
if there’s a vulnerability in a widespread library in an embedded device that can’t be patched, people should go smash the device with hammers.
They actually should, those devices get hijacked for botnets.
This is ridiculous. Vulnerabilities dont mean severity of damage and risk assessment is better made by individuals themselves. If you're afraid of botnets get a firewall. But go ahead and mandate this. Let's do it. Better yet, let's require the registeration of all unable to be patched devices and give the government the right to smash those devices if they don't get updates. That's the world I want to live in.
They expect that in another year LLM-assisted fixing will be the norm. It probably is already.
The article says they are willing to negotiate in exceptional cases, and mentions Spectre.
It's not the fixing that's usually the problem, it's more the testing.
The testing can take a while, assuming it's a consideration at all.
Skipping testing is how you end up with another Crowdstrike scenario.
Crowdstrike was a good example of why you should never allow global updates to roll out all at once , even for configuration changes. Cloudflare has learnt the same lesson recently https://blog.cloudflare.com/18-november-2025-outage/
Bug fix speed isn’t particularly relevant, rollout speed is.
Two week rollouts should be (and needs to be) sufficient in any product that imposes security risks. Attackers will not wait longer.
Two week rollouts are insane. Three days, in the vast majority of contexts, is generous.
I hate to see slow rollouts. The single best thing you can do for fighting bugs is to roll out with canaries; weekslong rollouts only make sense when someone actually has to be in the middle of a cursed release while it runs.
If there's a bug in your code and it's rare there isn't much disruption. If it's not rare, why didn't your tests catch it?
You're both missing the point. The actual issue is llm exploit generation. If they can find it, so can other bad actors. We can't sit on issues anymore the time to exploit is now tiny or negative in some cases.
If AI can find it in 30 days, so can the attacker's AI. Continuing an embargo of something the attacker already knows is counterproductive.
Every piece of software you have ever used almost certainly has critical security vulnerabilities, right now, no matter how up to date it is. However, you don't know about them and neither does anyone else.
If you can prove that no one else knows about them then I see no problem.
Obviously you can't prove that, but again, you can't prove that for literally any software you're using right now.
Let's say a bug hasn't been found for the past 20 years. Google finds it, but it's going to take longer than 30 days to fix. Is it really better to let everyone know about it after 30 days? If no one else has found it (true, as far as we know) in the past 20 years, what are the probabilities it will be found by a second person in the next few months?
i find it more surprising they put it so far away really.
Oh the irony here.
AOSP still has a 6 months holding back patches delay, the reasoning was "improved security".
So, what is improving security now? Fast patches or slow patches? :)
You misunderstand - denying patches to downstream vendors improves financial security for Google.
But they actually did this to comply with the EU Cyber Resilience Act. When a patch is released, a legal clock starts ticking - anyone who doesn't apply it promptly is liable for any resulting damages.
Perhaps eventually, they can finally live up to their namesake. On January 1 2029, we will move to a "Full 0" policy where vulnerabilities are disclosed after (looks at camera) zero days.
IMO the disclosure should ~day-two after there is a fix/workaround available
Releasing before that is non-actionable by many actors (aside from taking the service completely down I guess). Any time after fix is available is just allowing vulnerable systems to be attacked and is playing favourites with who gets fix and who doesn't
Nah. You need a clear deadline or people will just drag it out.
So you're saying:
2 days after there's a fix, with a max of 90 days after disclosure?
Because you still need to have the 90 days no matter what to induce the vendor to create a fix. Otherwise (many) just sit on it forever.
> you still need to have the 90 days no matter what to induce the vendor to create a fix
You’re replying in a thread whose top level comment is that the 90 days will rapidly decrease to 30.
Hope 30 is enough to induce them to fix.
Maybe the future fixes will be “Reddit + Claude”, done at home.
If AI is doing all the work I could see that; same day remediation.
Which means developers must trust AI blindly since there is no time to review the fix. Which also means that developers are completely unneeded
No, that's not what it means. It just means that the benefit must outweigh the risk, as always. Making surgical patches to existing code is also quite different to introducing features, which is what developers typically spend their time on. Not that same-day patching would imply literally zero time to review either.
That does not follow. Somebody stills needs to set it up. And maybe to sign off. The AI could instantly diagnose and summarize the problem and its remediation and you say the word.
The way you describe it puts the role of humans as merely decorarive and ceremonial. The work is done by AI and actually validated by AI too, and increasingly the role of the human is to give an ok to whatever the AI outputs
And someone who understands the whole thing needs time to validate that the remediation is indeed what it's supposed to be.
No, they're not - they can just release and wait for another vulnerability disclosure. Then the loop between [Vendors] and Project Zero needs no humans in it.
And that's how wallets and bank accounts get drained. Future's looking bright.
“Someone” being another AI agent.
It’s agents all the way down.
AI is not doing all the work.
Do we even know what AI will be doing in two years?
We can extrapolate from the last two years now that it's older than that. In 2024, although vibe coding hadn't been coined yet, AI was being used to autocomplete lines and functions with the tab key. Now it is autocompleting entire programs with a chat interface. In another two years it may be autocompleting whole projects with a neural interface.
No, and neither does Google which makes their 30 days ridiculous.
You can do a 30 day fix with just humans. It's not ridiculous.
If AI is doing all the work then why would remediation be needed at all? Why can't the software AI produces be vuln-free if the same AI is used to detect them?
Because LLMs are not deterministic or predictable and make mistakes that they are capable of fixing.
LLMs will write vulnerable code while the same model can find those vulnerabilities if you prompt it right. Some stats from a previous post was that the CVEs found in Linux were costing on average $1000 in api usage each. So having the LLM prevent writing vulnerabilities would explode the costs.
Because the people finding the vulns aren't the people running the services.
Why aren't they? The people running the services can use the AI to find the vulnerabilities before they release.
You talk as though there is one AI model that is perfect and capable of identifying all potential flaws with no mistakes or omissions, and that access is free and unlimited.
Reality is more complicated than that.
Project zero is run by Google, one of the few groups doing frontier models. If you consider their revenue streams, Google is the sole frontier player that can actually fund insane research and compute out of pocket without relying on any hype cycle.
So, Google will have some model that is much more powerful than the publicly available models. Before releasing it to the world, they can use it to mitigate any issue it discovers anywhere
Exactly. That's super irresponsible to knowingly release software that you haven't used AI to check if it had any vulns. There's zero (heh) excuse to release vulnerable software at that point.
Catching lots of bugs in software written with poor methodology is the new norm and that is not the same as releasing software that is not vulnerable. That is releasing software that needs increasing technological improvements or luck to find remaining vulnerabilities.
Is the AI in the room with you right now?
The Machine is everywhere. Watching us with ten thousand eyes. Listening with a million ears.
they are altering the deal, pray that they do not alter it again
Ubuntu will need a LOT more time than that.
After seeing the latest vuln response times by Ubuntu, I switched my main PC to Debian; and will progressively migrate my homelab as I have time.
Definitely much happier. There’s nothing I miss from Ubuntu.
Running trivy scans on my docker containers has really highlighted which projects keep up to date. I’ve been moving away from all the one person projects to more commercial offerings that keep on top of updates.
Of course I don’t expect a single person to work every day for free, but I also can’t have a project with only a single dev exposed to the internet.
Ubuntu is one thing (and is crazy it took so long) but RHEL somehow failed on that too.
Unrelated, but didn't realise .google was a TLD.
Actually many brands pay for their own TLD, though most go unused (publicly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...
so are .ads, .android, .cal, .chrome, .dclk, .docs, .drive, .gbiz, .gle, .gmail, .goog, .google, .guge, .hangout, .map, .meet, .play, .prod, .search,, .youtube, and .グーグル, .谷歌.
They are all owned by Google, but registrations are not open to the public.
There's lots of them now. Companies can apply to have their own for a few hundred thousand dollars.
It's been an amazing money maker for ICANN.
Is this a version of extortion? Isn't this Google, a massive company with lots of power and control, forcing the prioritization of work on everyone under the guise of security? It's at least clearly a threat.
I agree with you. Google pretends that this is "donating security research to the community" and maybe it started like that, but it has been clear for some time that there is an element of bullying and abuse in the process that they are conveniently ignoring to be able to sleep better at night.
It all came to a head once before: https://thenewstack.io/ffmpeg-to-google-fund-us-or-stop-send...
And Google has a vested interest in FFMPEG, because it uses it heavily to transcode and process videos. So they absolutely benefit from the work, for free.
Project Zero doesn't create the vulnerabilities, it finds them. Vendors want unlimited time to fix their bugs. Users want to know ASAP if the software they are running is vulnerable. These things are obviously in tension, so you need a deadline.
It's gotten easier finding vulnerabilities, so every day without disclosure now brings a higher chance that blackhats have already found the bug. The deadline gets shorter accordingly.
Calling vulnerability research "extortion" is the kind of ignorant messenger-blaming the hacker culture has always ridiculed.
You are ignoring the part of Project Zero that reports the vulnerability.
Neither the users nor the vendors chose the 90/60/30 day limit.
Google is making an active choice in the design of their reporting process, and that is something that is open to critique and in some sense liability.
Why is Google choosing to report unlimited number of bugs, but a different Google program will only pay to fix 3 bugs? (https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/open-source/patch-...) Why are not all Project Zero bugs exempt from that limit and awarded a minimum reward?
These are legitimate questions to ask.
I didn't call it anything. I asked the question to understand.
What types of vulnerabilities does Project Zero find, in terms of their severity? And who are the companies that they are notifying?
You have to admit that there is likely a power imbalance here.
> I didn't call it anything.
You directly called it "clearly a threat", and you indirectly called it plausibly extortion or else there would be no reason to ask if it's extortion.
But you need to explain on what general basis this even could be extortion.
And they're not "forcing the prioritization" of anything. They're just reporting bugs they found. They don't even need to warn the vendors at all if they don't want to.
> extortion
What do you think Google is extorting from the publishers of insecure software - reduced security vulnerabilities? Or what is it that you think Google is actually after by doing this?
> guise of security
What do you think is the real motivation if not security?
Google is extorting free fixes for software Google depends on, instead of paying for them to be fixed.
As seen by the infamous FFMPEG incident: https://thenewstack.io/ffmpeg-to-google-fund-us-or-stop-send...
If you can't bother fix a critical security vulnerability in 30 days, you shouldn't be in the business of building software for others to use.
Those kind of comments read like: if you aren't Google (sized), you have no business building software
Why does it take Google scale to address reported security vulnerabilities in a timely manner?
And if something is just a personal / hobby project that you don't want to support - that's also fine. Having the security vulnerability published just means people using it have a more realistic view of the situation.
Smaller companies have less code for bugs to hide in.
This is sort of what I was getting at with my original post. I'm just curious as to the power dynamics here. Not everyone has $0.5 trillion in revenue every year.
It makes to hold out for disclosure if there's a pay day involved. Since this is Google, the bug bounty is not the issue. I say release right away. Nothing else will compel the company being reported on to fix otherwise.
You what the whole bottle?
I’m not familiar with this specific effort but it seems like the companies digging around for the bugs should also offer similar access to their products that discovered the vulnerabilities to the vendors or OSS projects to patch them. Otherwise vendors might use this as a leveraged approach to get people to adopt LLMs, specifically theirs, so their products remain reasonably attractive. Google, OpenAI, Anthropic etc could just turn on existing software as a strategy to get more adoption of their tools.
“Don’t like our constant stream of patches? For $10k/mo + tokens you can get access to the model to patch the vulnerabilities we disclose!”
Project Zero has been around far longer than GenAI or LLMs, so your point is not really relevant here.
How is it irrelevant? Just because an effort existed before some change, doesn’t mean it can be repurposed and leveraged for other purposes. It’s the entire reason law and policy for government isn’t set in stone and is adaptable, because culture, technology and so on change.
The dynamic in this context absolutely has changed. Marginal cost to discover vulnerabilities from AI frontier labs and the big players has dropped significantly. The cost to patch is low, if you have access to certain resources. If you don’t, tough luck.
So this argument is essentially against the entire argument of AI alignment guardrails right now. Maybe you disagree with those, but I for one am happy they’re doing some things to protect against bio related warfare engineering. This is a case of cyber that’s about grey. Even there the labs have limited access to some and are choosing winners.
The "product" that finds Project Zero bugs is the people who work for Project Zero.
Your argument makes complete sense if the tools that find a bug can automatically make a patch, but a vendor getting a thorough bug report can't make a patch with anywhere near the same amount of ease.
But that assumption is pretty crazy to me and your argument makes no sense to me.
For sure I would love to get access to P0 researchers for a m 10k/months, but i don’t believe you can hire such talent for this sum.
They are one of or maybe the most skilled security research team that’s doing public research and their blog is the source of many modern exploitation techniques
For a while, asking your agent to act like a P0 researcher was a nice nudge to find better bugs !
Usually you can’t find the kind of bugs P0 finds by just throwing AI at it. You need highly skilled people driving/guiding it. Highly skilled people are the bottleneck.
In any case it’d be sensible to make yourself familiar with the “specific effort” before you make up your opinion on it.
That's kinda the problem with asinine "safety" idea the AI moguls have.
It is just leaving people with less safe software. At least claude the limitations are actively preventing you from looking for security bugs in your own software
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I mean, sure, the cited $10k / mo is exploitative for small open-source projects but... in general, why wouldn't we want there to be pressure on companies and projects to use high-quality LLM-based checks if they want to see wide adoption?