10 comments

  • sva_6 minutes ago
    Seems like the CVE sequence has, for the first time, reached &gt;100000 this year (Which does not imply 100k vulns though)<p>Apparently by late summer this year, there were already more vulnerabilities found than in all of 2025.
  • imoverclocked5 minutes ago
    Is there a way to know if a particular vanilla kernel has a particular CVE addressed? Unhelpfully, the ChangeLog-* only seems to contain sporadic references to CVEs.
    • crtasm1 minute ago
      Clicking them here lists specific kernels, is that enough to tell you?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;security-tracker.debian.org&#x2F;tracker&#x2F;source-package&#x2F;linux" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;security-tracker.debian.org&#x2F;tracker&#x2F;source-package&#x2F;l...</a>
  • BobbyTables216 minutes ago
    Are these primarily AI-assisted findings ?<p>Seems like an enormous increase over 2024 and 2025.
  • tetrisgm12 minutes ago
    That’s probably a great thing. The initial friction of AI overwhelming projects certainly sucks, but once there are better processes to deal with them it’s going to strengthen the quality of so many projects!
    • SchemaLoad4 minutes ago
      Long term we will end up with software with no low hanging fruit exploits left. But right now we are in a period where low hanging fruit is everywhere and it&#x27;s easier to exploit systems than ever before.
  • modeless1 hour ago
    1,313 vulnerabilities, to be precise.
  • DominoTree27 minutes ago
    I was looking earlier and the majority of these do not have a CVSS score assigned to them yet, but a lot of them that did were &gt;7.0 (although I suppose by nature that the more impactful CVEs are going to be scored more quickly)
  • thallium20531 minutes ago
    Pretty much any kernel bug gets a CVE by default now, right?
    • wjholden26 minutes ago
      Is that all there is here? The quantifier &quot;several&quot; did not prepare me for the wall of CVE numbers in this list.
    • slopinthebag11 minutes ago
      yes because the majority are memory safety issues, and it&#x27;s automatically assumed that a memory safety bug can lead to a vuln<p>one again illustrating the importance of encapsulating unsafe behavior. perhaps c should get a __UNSAFE { } block, where memory access is encapsulated and thus most bugs occurring outside of those blocks do not need to be marked as CVEs.
      • akersten6 minutes ago
        &gt; perhaps c should get a __UNSAFE { } block,<p>I think the convention for this is at the filesystem level and most programmers use the `.c` suffix to indicate it
  • SadErn5 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • ofjcihen22 minutes ago
    [dead]