Rendered at 19:37:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
alpn 1 hours ago [-]
"[..] a security bug identified by
AI tools is subsequently independently discovered by a different
researcher. This suggests that adversaries who do not report bugs
to OSS projects are likely to be able to discover these bugs too.
Given this, the OpenSSH team will, for now, be making more frequent
releases to get bugfixes into users' hands more quickly rather than
batching them until the next planned release."
yjftsjthsd-h 57 minutes ago [-]
> ssh(1): add a "ssh -Z user@host" mode that prints the keys that
will be tried for public key authentication in the order that
they will be used.
Oh, that's a nice new feature:)
3asj176 57 minutes ago [-]
No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general. They mention security bug reports, so using AI like ASAN etc. is welcome.
akerl_ 25 minutes ago [-]
> No, AI assistance is NOT welcome in general.
Can you cite that? I see them specifically welcoming AI security reports; I don't see any evidence that other AI submissions are not welcome.
as12qh 12 minutes ago [-]
The AI boosters should look for evidence that they do allow AI contributions! Why would they mention in the release notes that AI security bug reports are welcome if they allowed AI in general anyway?
rvz 42 minutes ago [-]
You need to understand that they have no choice.
Attackers are going to use AI models to find bugs or 0 days quicker than those without it and of course they will not report them.
So it only makes sense to allow it and accept (valid) AI reports from reputable security researchers to keep ahead before a bug gets exploited in a vulnerable release.
As long as the submitter shows their understanding of the reported bug means and what the change is, it is fine to do so, with the reviewers gating invalid reports.
> so using AI like ASAN etc. is welcome.
AddressSanitizer is not "AI", nor does it use AI. [0]
Yeah, I'd rather a secure OpenSSH than an AI free one. I appreciate users taking stands and drawing hard lines in the sand, but I think exemptions for large foundations of networking in general should be made, as like you said, threat actors don't care much about AI assistance and will happily use any 0-days it finds.
frumplestlatz 4 minutes ago [-]
If you need to make exemptions for critical code because you must admit that AI is undeniably of significant utility, it's pretty foolish to still apply a blanket "hard stand" against it elsewhere.
AI is here and it's not going anywhere. It's not going to be pretty, but the people that are going to be hit the hardest are those who cannot -- or worse, refuse to -- adapt.
as12qh 9 minutes ago [-]
I'm not a native speaker, but in other languages the cited text clearly means "using AI in the manner of ASAN or similar tools".
4L3XV33 1 hours ago [-]
Glad they're not letting potential high false positive rate preclude discovery of true positives. Better to get a lot of noise with a little bit of signal, if the alternative was not get that signal at all.
jscd 1 hours ago [-]
Am I crazy to think this title is just incorrect? They say AI reports are welcome, not fixes.
voxadam 1 hours ago [-]
That was sloppy work on my part. Updated.
saghm 1 hours ago [-]
If you still have the ability to edit it, looks like there's a typo in the word "assistance"
voxadam 59 minutes ago [-]
It's just not my day.
JoshTriplett 50 minutes ago [-]
"AI assistance" is still not welcome in general. AI security reports are.
akerl_ 16 minutes ago [-]
Is that the case? I see this note focusing on AI reports in the release notes, and I've poked around the OpenSSH project more generally and don't see any indication that they don't accept or welcome other AI inputs.
Oh, that's a nice new feature:)
Can you cite that? I see them specifically welcoming AI security reports; I don't see any evidence that other AI submissions are not welcome.
Attackers are going to use AI models to find bugs or 0 days quicker than those without it and of course they will not report them.
So it only makes sense to allow it and accept (valid) AI reports from reputable security researchers to keep ahead before a bug gets exploited in a vulnerable release.
As long as the submitter shows their understanding of the reported bug means and what the change is, it is fine to do so, with the reviewers gating invalid reports.
> so using AI like ASAN etc. is welcome.
AddressSanitizer is not "AI", nor does it use AI. [0]
[0] https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...
AI is here and it's not going anywhere. It's not going to be pretty, but the people that are going to be hit the hardest are those who cannot -- or worse, refuse to -- adapt.