Top
Best
New

Posted by hacb 11 hours ago

Project Zero will disclose vulnerabilities 90 days after reporting(projectzero.google)
114 points | 20 comments
my-huge-pony 5 hours ago|
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.

ares623 2 hours ago||
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.
esafak 2 hours ago||
If AI is doing all the work I could see that; same day remediation.
nextaccountic 51 minutes ago|||
Which means developers must trust AI blindly since there is no time to review the fix. Which also means that developers are completely unneeded
esafak 41 minutes ago||
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.
ares623 2 hours ago|||
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?
IncreasePosts 2 hours ago|||
Because the people finding the vulns aren't the people running the services.
thwarted 2 hours ago||
Why aren't they? The people running the services can use the AI to find the vulnerabilities before they release.
Catloafdev 16 minutes ago|||
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.

ares623 2 hours ago|||
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.
unsloppable 2 hours ago|||
Is the AI in the room with you right now?
level87 53 minutes ago||
Unrelated, but didn't realise .google was a TLD.
DaSHacka 27 minutes ago||
Actually many brands pay for their own TLD, though most go unused (publicly).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...

mindwok 28 minutes ago||
There's lots of them now. Companies can apply to have their own for a few hundred thousand dollars.
jamiesonbecker 1 hour ago||
[flagged]
Refreeze5224 1 hour ago|
Nice unsolicited plug for your slop product.
Frost1x 1 hour ago|
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!”

Refreeze5224 1 hour ago||
Project Zero has been around far longer than GenAI or LLMs, so your point is not really relevant here.
Frost1x 1 hour ago||
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.

ylk 37 minutes ago|||
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.

clhodapp 51 minutes ago||
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?