> How can we help identify and fix vulnerabilities in downstream packages while upstream fixes are pending, or backport fixes to older versions that no longer receive security updates?<p>Is the company selling a magical code generation machine really asking how it can backport a fix to an older version of the same software?<p>Is this for real?
Unless the magical code generation machine can update packages that are no longer being updated, this isn't really a problem that can be solved with magical code generation.
people running "older versions that no longer receive security updates" are unlikely to update to some new patch-stream from this tooling, because they're already not maintaining their infrastructure.
no. I think they mean how to navigate the non technical organizational challenge, not how to technically fix the thing<p>it’s a quite simple matter to fix a bug once it’s discovered, but how to deploy and where to deploy it when it affects a supply chain?<p>here’s an example: you can submit a vuln at a downstream dep and they can tell you it should be patched upstream. what should you do? open an issue upstream? maybe, probably not, probably the solution is to contact all downstream deps in order to get them to migrate dep or patch, because you just reported a vuln and they shrugged it off
Hey world, we created this problem, and it will hurt all of you whether you use it or not. The good thing is there is a solution: if you pay us a lot of money we can try to fix it. The only problem is you’d better hurry because we are releasing the dangerous stuff as fast as we can so you’d better pay us to put the safety measures in place because we are the only people that can fix it and time is running out because, like I said, we are moving fast.<p>So how many tokens can I put you down for.
Why are you framing it like this? Did they create this vuln and how did they force people to pay for a fix?
Because it is a reasonable logical inference from the facts.<p>1. OpenAI started the current AI cycle<p>2. That cycle has exposed exponentially more security vulnerabilities due to agentic coding<p>3. OpenAI is rushing as fast as they can to reach the singularity even while acknowledging that they lack the ability to ensure reasonable safety.<p>4. They launch an initiative to “address” the security vulnerabilities by using their coding tools.<p>Am I missing something? There is a broad range of motives and responses.
In this case (the PHP bug), the "AI cycle" may have exposed the security vulnerability but it did not create it. If someone released a non-AI-based static analysis tool that was really good at exposing vulnerabilities I wouldn't expect that person to foot the bill of fixing the exposed vulnerabilities
That’s a fine point but the sheer volume of bug discovery and exploitation that is now possible is the problem, not the mere existence of a bug. An undiscovered bug is a problem, billions of coding agents searching every bit of software 24/7 for any vulnerability is a disruptive change that is exacerbated by the speed run competition that disregards the risk.
Imagine a world full of locks that humans can only rarely pick.<p>Then, someone releases a pick that works for many more locks humans couldn't pick.<p>And says: You can't stop the progress. Now pay us to upgrade your locks (no-no, they won't be doctored to fit our next-gen picks, trust us!)
Your comments in other threads suggest an devotion to the frontier labs. In another thread when I suggested they lied to investors and that constitutes securities fraud you questioned it in an overly dismissive manner. I would love to understand where you are coming from. I am open to being persuaded that my opinion is incomplete and I should be more charitable to openAI and anthropic.
> Your comments in other threads suggest an devotion to the frontier labs.<p>I don't use these models much I just don't like unfair criticism.<p>> In another thread when I suggested they lied to investors and that constitutes securities fraud you questioned it in an overly dismissive manner.<p>I'm confused, are you posting under two identities?<p>The user Frieren claimed that this post constituted securities fraud. To which I responded: "You're claiming this is securities fraud?"<p>Is that dismissive? It was a genuine question, I don't get how it's even accurate say that they are lying in the post and I especially don't get how it is securities fraud.<p>Your post doesn't have anything to do with the blogpost. Once again, I'm not against criticism just unfair/weak criticism. I don't think it helps anything.
Before I forget: Sam Altman will need a lock of your hair, a blood sample, and first you will need to breathe into this tube and say “my voice is my passport.”<p>I assure you this is perfectly formal, and for your… “safety”.
didn't think we'd win the race to the bottom of rent-seeking, but humanity's ingenuity for self-destruction continues to astound me. Einstein was right as always.
there was a post recently on a guy that was posting fake stats in order to prove that llms can be tricked<p>similarly OpenAI was born out of the idea that the tech will exist and that they should be the oned to decide how it exists instead of other bad guys<p>I think if you do something you did it, imagining another bad guy doing it is not a great defense.
It seems like OpenAI are trying to frame this as if AI did all the work here, but it's not really true given what Calif say (<a href="https://calif.io/php2shell/" rel="nofollow">https://calif.io/php2shell/</a>):<p>> How did we find this?<p>> No special harness, or access to models that weren't generally available to everyone were used in the initial bug discovery. I focused on something I had a background in, knew its vulnerability history well, and held a theory that specific bugs lurk within the codebase. This shows that "know your target" is still as applicable as ever, even in the LLM dominated VR age. No model is simply capable of unearthing "all bugs" with simple prompts. At least for now.<p>> There are some practical research implications here. LLMs may have ingested public historical vuln data, but in their default variant analysis tends to move from the newest and most prominent bugs toward nearby older code. They do not reliably begin with obscure twenty-year-old exploitation primitives. Keeping your own mental catalog of a target's vulnerability history lets you prompt that direction explicitly.
They literally open by saying Calif used GPT 5.6 Sol, which is a widely available model. Yes, the person driving did more than "find all the bugs", but nowhere does OpenAI imply otherwise.
> It highlights how AI can uncover security flaws with internet-scale impact<p>> To our knowledge, frontier AI found these vulnerabilities before attackers did<p>I don't know who/what Calif is and there's no link to them, so if I were only reading this article I would definitely get the impression that "AI did all the work here".
Pure marketing, it's getting increasingly hard to separate actual technical feats of agents from marketing pretentious declarations. Such a terrible environment to navigate right now.
What’s worse is that this is part of a larger strategy of scaring the public to get regulatory capture<p>It’s just gross and manipulative. You have no moat, get over it<p>pAtCh ThE pLaNeT today, tomorrow it's creepy rent-seeking behavior
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do you prefer they not engage in helping finding vulns at all? Do you not think there are parts of the company interested in security and doing it for the sake of that?<p>I feel like taking every action these companies take as part of some larger strategy is kind of conspiracy-minded.
Disclaimer: I work as a sec engineer and part of my job includes finding vulnerabilities.<p>I think the effort is misplaced. We should be exploring ways to make our systems more resilient and I would expect those companies* to focus on that front. Vulnerability research is important, and we should aim to remove as many bugs as we can from our codebases but the pace of software development is increasing and so is the introduction of new bugs.<p>* I would also expect an increase on relevant research regarding novel paradigms of securing systems.
Why didn't OAI go back to non-profit again?<p>Where's the conspiracy. There is no moat. The technology is easily reproducible. Deepseek unwound an entire business model yesterday.
Mind elaborating on that Deepseek point? I am aware of the USG decision, what exactly do you mean?
The conspiracy theory is suggesting this is part of a larger strategy. I'm just saying it's a big enough company with a wide enough range of beliefs that I find it pretty likely that the direct motives for this weren't to enable regulatory capture.<p>But they could be, that's why it's a conspiracy theory.
Suppose it goes like this: part of the company clearly benefits from “AI scary” publicity.<p>Other parts of the company want to support the public.<p>The first part of the company backs up the second in internal politics.<p>Do you consider this a conspiracy? Just seems like “good business” to me. It doesn’t seem as clean as you want to make it seem, though.
It's not hard tho, the default mode of thinking should be to never trust what a US corporation says.
Not marketing. It is a crime related to fraud or securities fraud.
This isn't a security incident as much as it is a marketing opportunity for all these companies.
OpenAI: your misfortune is our PR opportunity
> OpenAI are trying to frame this as if AI did all the work here<p>CEOs of all big corporations are constantly lying and misleading the public, investors and shareholders. That is a crime. A shame that it is not enforced anymore.
Just more IPO shilling from the scam-man.
The first sentence of "Coordinating a global response" is "Getting a fix into use can mean adapting it for older releases"... but I guess they mean "only supported releases", as the fixes only go back as far as 8.2, which still has security support until the end of the year, but nothing for 8.1 or 8.0, and in the case of PHP there are still plenty of PHP sites on 7.x and even 5.6.<p>I wouldn't expect the PHP team to provide patches for versions for which security support has ended. But this seems like the kind of task that AI is especially well suited for-- rework the patch for a release that is no longer supported but still widely used. It would've been nice for people who have much older sites to be able to patch their PHP rather than have to upgrade PHP as well to get the fix.
The commit $1 billion in tokens to "defenders". $1 billion directly to QA for open source projects [1] which would write 100% code coverage, run ASAN and fuzzers would be more effective.<p>But of course there would be no marketing.<p>[1] From whom you stole everything in the first place.
I'm as frustrated as the next open source maintainer, but "stole" goes too far. We gave that code away with pride, knowing the world would be a better place.
Few works are released directly to the public domain. It is my understanding that the public domain doesn't even exist in all legal jurisdictions.<p>Most people license out the software under specific requirements and prohibitions. BSD requires attribution. GPL variants require adherence to copyleft when distributing derivative works. A little under half of all github repos don't even have a license, which means that though the source is published, no one has any license under which to copy it or derive new works from it.<p>So far as I have seen, whether aggregating and munging these works into abstract LLM weights constitutes fair use is still legally unclear. If not deemed fair use, it is almost certainly a massive violation of copyright.
You can read code, rewrite the functionality yourself, and sell it, and not be at odds with copyright. Open source does NOT protect against reimplementation. See Java lawsuits.<p>If you don't want your code to be used as possible inspiration, then you are not actually for open source, and are using the wrong license. The licenses are legal bindings, not moral bindings.<p>"Don't use any concept found within this code" would be a license that doesn't really fit with any current copyright law, and it wouldn't allow any software to exist, except that made in the 70's.
Worth noting that the ai giants 'stole' from open source, but they also stole from closed source.<p>That is, they knowingly and willingly broke the law by stealing an unprecedented volume of proprietary, copyrighted materials.<p>Books: Bartz v. Anthropic<p>Films and TV: Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.<p>Music: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic<p>Photography: Getty Images v Stability AI<p>Journalism: Postmedia Network Inc., Torstar Corporation, The Globe and Mail Inc., and The Canadian Press v. Anthropic PBC
That's as noble as throwing breads at the crowd while being perfectly aware that there lurks a number of armed henchmmen of "noblety" in it, who won't miss the opportunity to amass those breads to resell them.<p>Or at least just childishly naive for failing to notice that beforehand.
Doesn't this impl that licensing was respected? I feel like it wasn't
Speak for yourself. I don't see every model being released under GPL after having read the entire source code as a step of creating their binary artifacts (model files).<p>The point of the open source I work on is to contribute to a commons, not to have it stolen so that it can be used to destroy those commons, used for the profit of techbros, and used to justify the murder of children.
To be pedantic, would that not be marketing?<p>To be further pedantic, is that really stealing? They are disregarding copyright but was anything taken from anybody? I thought that was the old argument for piracy, ie, nobody was deprived of anything.
It’s marketing, but in a global good will sense of “look how much OpenAI cares about secure open source.”<p>This works for established profitable brands that want to build / maintain a good public image.<p>This isn’t the marketing needed by an unprofitable startup that wants to show hyper growth before its IPO. They need the “use our product or get pwned” kind of marketing.
If OpenAI cared about open source or security, they'd give access to open source projects directly. But they don't:<p><a href="https://openai.com/form/enterprise-trusted-access-for-cyber/" rel="nofollow">https://openai.com/form/enterprise-trusted-access-for-cyber/</a><p>"Daybreak enables vetted enterprise customers and cybersecurity practitioners to use our most capable models for dual-use cybersecurity work."<p>They explicitly give out access to those who will make a big announcement of bugs found. OpenAI <i>does not want projects to fix bugs themselves</i> so it can have more bugs and better marketing.
So much fluff and marketing from every group.<p>Just give us the damn code to verify things are working since so many have to use stopgap solutions and want to verify them
> Patch the Planet<p>I'm sure they named it after the "Hack the planet" slogan from the Hackers movie.
Is there a sister site? perhaps <a href="https://stop-deploying-public-facings-services.com" rel="nofollow">https://stop-deploying-public-facings-services.com</a> or <a href="https://dont-build-more-software.org" rel="nofollow">https://dont-build-more-software.org</a>?
I would simply write code that doesn't have vulnerabilities in the first place.
This thread contains an enormous amount of negativity that just doesn't make sense here. OAI are giving developers and security researchers access to AI models so they can check their software for vulnerabilities. What's the problem? Sure, there's marketing around the success stories.<p>Some people are acting like this is only a problem because labs are releasing models that can find and exploit these vulnerabilities in the first place. This is a nonsense claim. Humans have been discovering vulnerabilities and privately weaponizing exploits just fine for decades. We are collectively raising the floor for security.
l'IA est simplement un outils ce sont les ingénieurs derrière qu'ils faut féliciter pour leur travail acharné.
If you're using Dependabot, we built a service that automatically analyses, fixes broken checks, and (optionally) auto-merges Dependabot PRs for you so this type of update can land automatically.<p>Check it out: PatchWave (<a href="https://patchwave.ai" rel="nofollow">https://patchwave.ai</a>)<p>(Disclosure - I am a co-founder)
> Emergency patching. When, if ever, should governments or other operators use a vulnerability to patch systems they own or are authorized to manage after losing administrative access? What safeguards should apply? We can imagine an end-state of internet-wide always-on scanning for known vulnerabilities, and either notifying site owners when one is detected or patching the system.<p>The wild stuff is at the end. They propose someone (who?) auto-patching even systems they don't own.
I am shocked that they are releasing a skill to check the php version.<p>Who cannot type "php --version" but can use skills?
That's not what it does. `php --version` may well not report the php version that's actually running.
Not very shocking that OpenAI wants you to use tokens
lol, I went to the repo expecting to see some more detailed skill, that has instructions on checking various things/PHP install locations/things that could be using PHP that need to be checked, webservers, docker containers, etc/instructions for checking various php deployment methods on cloud providers/etc... i.e. making the skill useful so that it can check lots of places.<p>Nope, it just says to run php -V and has a table of vulnerable vs non-vulnerable versions.<p>Sigh
There are lots of people who have underwent a lobotomy since discovering slop machines and have delegated literally all their work to them, so much so that calling `php --version` is too much for them.<p>People stuck working at companies with slop machine usage mandates will appreciate that skill too.
Well tbh, I know people who graduated 3 years go, got a job, worked and even got promoted as SWE who dont know the basic commands of an OS. I recently had an EE with a senior position admit to me they dont know how to use grep because they've been relying on llms since they got out of school.<p>Lots of the tech world, especially the younger side is completely reliant on these things for every little thing. Im not exaggerating either.
We enabled the disease and provided the vaccine!
The AI economy profits solely off of the broken window fallacy.
hmmm not sure about this one, the disease was already there it just available to anynone (not only for state sponsored actors) and the vaccine is globally available at a fraction of what it cost to build it.
Did they actually do anything good here ? Is this really marketing in the middle of this shitshow ?
They found a vulnerability and reported it; isn't that a good thing? Are you suggesting it would be better to just not look for vulnerabilities, hoping that if nobody knows they exist, they can't be exploited?<p>I thought that logic had been widely discredited in the security community long ago.
Copenhagen interpretation of security, doncha know?
Calif found the vulnerability, not OpenAI
> Calif identified a critical flaw using GPT‑5.6 Sol as part of our Patch the Planet initiative
Wiz claims they they found it with Gemini? I have no idea who actually found it.<p>Edit: Apparently both found independently
If they can find the vulnerability anyone can. This whole "patch the planet" is marketing trying to cover up for the danger AI is unleashing on internet infrastructure.
> 1 August 2026: 2 days after OpenAI invites Calif to join its “Patch the Planet” initiative, Ryan Austin finds the RCE paths, tweets a cryptographic hash on 5 August, and submits the bug and working RCE proof-of-concept to PHP between 11 August and 14 August.<p><a href="https://deadneurons.substack.com/p/php2shell-explained-php2shell-was" rel="nofollow">https://deadneurons.substack.com/p/php2shell-explained-php2s...</a>
yes, they sat on a working exploit for 2 months to hone their magic "this exploits everything"-script. In other words: criminals.
>In other words: criminals.<p>You're not required to disclose bugs, nor is developing exploits a criminal offense (assuming no intent/conspiracy to hack stuff).
No idea what your comment is even about. The researchers that found and reported this did not sit on this for 2 months.<p>> 1 August 2026 [...] Ryan Austin finds the RCE paths, tweets a cryptographic hash on 5 August, and submits the bug and working RCE proof-of-concept to PHP between 11 August and 14 August.<p>> 19–24 August 2026: Wiz Research independently collides with the same bug family using Wiz Atlas, Gemini 4 Argon, and GPT-5.6 Sol, reporting its variants on 24 August.<p>I get some skepticism about marketing copy, but your comment is blatantly wrong and needlessly rude.
This is an insult to actual security researchers and engineers. What a bunch of nonsense words.<p>OpenAI consistently doesn't know what they're talking about.
Patch the Planet? Not with OpenAI tools.<p>How much time will be left in the Defender’s Window between now and an organization getting Daybreak Access?
[flagged]
Feels like a marketing campaign lol
In 2024 I saw a reddit post answering the question: AI is going to program <i>insert name</i> App.<p>Response: "What's the prompt?"<p>Yep. I might take minimum wage interns and make million dollar software(or million dollars in 2023), but they often run into issues that a 5 minute review with me solves.<p>I do wonder if AI is going to eliminate prompt engineering... It's basically all I have left. I feel like I have magic words.
I can't think of how it'll really eliminate prompting, but needing to carefully phrase your language already seems in the way out? Wasn't one of the prompts leading to solving fields problems just "look for fields problems and try very hard" or the equivalent
Yeah, I was explaining this as magic words. It seems like knowing `pandoc` means you can convert any kind of document into any other kind of document.<p>Knowing uv means you can scaffold any python project. docker lets you build any infrastructure kit.