Easy, all the bad guys need to do is access whatever system stores the decryption keys.

Which secrets were they using?

script kiddies now have access to frontier models. bad

companies probably have php and Python applications exposed to the web and nobody knows.

the speed of irresponsible deployments is infinite now, by design

Defending is so much harder than attacking. You don't even have to focus on one target, as you can just mass-AI-script a lot of attacks wherever it's possible, and see what sticks. Even if you did everything right, there's always the social-engineering angle, or a single compromised device, or just accidental bad upgrade through supply chain. If you can mass-spread the seed, and plant something that "calls home" constantly, you can just have an agent that would start the attack the minute it gets infected, and go deeper.

It's really a wild west right now, have no idea how we fix it. I'm assuming everything will get more concentrated in big co's hands, as having a very robust security is extremely hard.

Also, we have to agree that younger people will start companies. There will be small companies that cannot afford red teams. There will be companies that are just not equipped, and their profit margins cannot sustain constant attacks.

> It’s funny that every security breach disclosure now has a mandatory “the attacker used AI!”

This isn't in the article? They do not at all claim "the attacked used AI!".

The only mention of "AI" is "We believe this is part of a series of attacks recently targeting platform companies with the aim of compromising AI inference providers." This is the same (apparently) end-goal as the Opencode breach last week, and is not blaming or finger-point at AI. It is stating (rightfully) that AI inference is very easy to resell and turn stolen credentials into cash.

> your own red teaming should have found them before the attacker did

Easier said than done. The defender has to do everything right, all the time, to prevent a headline like this. The attacker only needs to be right once, and it's game over. AI or no AI.

Unless they edited the post, they never said this. You should delete this; it's false information.

I didn’t actually see that in this post at all. They mention that the end goal of the attackers might be to get to AI inference providers. But I don’t think they are crying “AI was used” here.

Or did I miss something?

This one doesn’t?