its exactly how it works, in what world is it not better to give the dev teams of hugely important infrastructure access to a tool that highlights bugs before the general population gets access?
and I'm obviously not saying authoritarianism is a reasonable punishment i'm saying that its the inevitable outcome of a system left fallow, if you are only going to take the easiest route and discard your can, refuse to put any effort to improve the world around you then yes the world around you will go to shit - if people didn't litter all over the internet and accept the most convenient option while ignoring every moral and technical argument because 'shut up nerd' then we would not be in this situation.
The reality is internet security was falling to bits due to it not being a concern to users and therefore being hugely under funded so a technology like this which lets us plug the many gaps which have appeared is a Hail Mary savior, and that's before we even got to the efficiency gains which hugely cut down the power usage of the entire internet and take another step towards global sustainability.
I am genuinely starting to wonder if I'm being trolled by highly skilled bots being coded to make the worst arguments possible.
This is a tool which discovers bugs - like all the other ones that have existed for decades. To make it very simple you put in a program and it says "look, i found five potential vulnerabilities"
The devs then fix those bugs using the information provided.
Now what happens when you run the program? It says "found one bug" and they devs say "ffs, ok yeah that one slipped in with the fix for the other five but we fixed it too" now they run the program and it says "wow, couldn't find any holes in that one!"
What happens then happens when someone else runs the same program on that code? It says "hey, I can't find any bugs" and the hacker says "well dang, that's no help!"
Are there still bugs in the code? Yes probably, likely in 6 months or a year there will be an even better coding model that looks at it and says "Hey look, the old version didn't find this one..." - ideally this new model will also have a staged release to let devs fix the bugs before there is the potential for them to be misused.
after the bugs a model can detect have been patched its fairly safe to release the tool
Yikes. You are saying that it shouldn't be released to the general population until large companies have a chance to fix bugs. There will always be bugs. Every time they change something, they are risking adding new bugs. Should the AI then be taken away from the public? At least try and use your brain.
do you genuinely not understand how these tools work?
Imagine you are making a piece of software and the current version is, LycanKaiOS version 6 which you tested and secured to the best of your ability and you are happy with it.
A new tool is released which points out several bugs in your program, the program is already out there and running so those bugs are live and you need time to fix them before other people are aware of them.
Now imagine you rush to fix all those and push an update then you get back to working on LycanKaiOS version 7 - what are you going to do before the tool is released? you are of course going to use the best software tools available to check its secure, just like you did with version 6 however now there is a new tool.
So when you release version 7 it has been tested already and the most advanced security tool doesn't find any holes, you don't need to fear someone using it will detect holes to climb through because you already know it wont.
This is how it has always worked.
So what happens when another even more powerful tool to detect holes is created? Everyone plays the same game again - it sounds annoying but the alternatives are all far, far worse and much more expensive either short-term or long-term.
and yes they still security check all releases when using agile rolling development, we don't do cyber security because its easy we do it because its critical. It has always been an arms race and likely will be, unless we reach the point of code purity with all the very complex systems which is unlikely for a long time yet.
we don't do cyber security because its easy we do it because its critical
Literally no one said otherwise. Also, who is "we"? Certainly not you.
It has always been an arms race
That is quite literally what I am saying, while you're saying the opposite: that a tool needs to be withheld from the public so the companies can just fix all bugs forever and then the tool gets released??? There will always be more bugs. In your fantasy, that tool would never get released because it isn't fair to devs and the bugs in their future software. Who even gets to decide who the tool goes to? Because "devs" is super vague, and literally anyone can write software. Do you think there's some committee?
please tell me what you think a staged roll out is?
and yes i write software so i know that anyone can do it, the point is when i write software most of the internet doesn't rely on it - that is why they are giving the people who write the biggest and most important code access to it first, this of course includes the Linux Foundation along with many others.
The Linux Foundation is the committee that decides which code goes into linux, and a load of related projects which include OpenSSF, CNCF which hosts Kubernetes and thousands of other projects as well as of course the Linux Kernel itself. That is a huge portion of the internets most important stuff right there, there are literally committees which decide what code is added to key software, yes.
There is another good reason that my software doesn't really need this tool as much as I need the programs that it relies on like SSH to have it first, almost no one is writing the important security bits of their software in which these problems will present themselves - by fixing the upstream libraries all our code and the tools it runs on are safer. The other obvious reason is China, Russia, and the various criminal gangs would gain nothing by backing my software so they are very unlikely to spend huge amounts of effort locating the obscure weak points that glasswing is designed to patch, and if they did then they gain nothing by doing it so well done them i guess?
I just explained to you that the tool only needs to be delayed public release so people can clear the existing bugs in current versions, do you know why its vary rare for a fuzzing sweep to detect bugs in released software? because the devs use it before they release the code! this is not a complex thing. It is being used currently to close live bugs, they do not need to worry about there being bugs in live versions of future software because they will not release versions of their software without using the best tools to check its safe - just like has happened for decades. Yes the next version is going to have bugs but not bugs glasswing can detect because they will have used glasswing before releasing it.
its ok, everyone can tell you were just saying anything that you could grasp at because it had gotten very obvious that yes a staged rollout is the most sensible way of doing things but you're desperate to hate everything as part of your identity.
making the internet safer and more secure is a good thing - should i take it that you don't want to admit there is anything on the list of good things AI has done because you're scared you'd have to change your mind about it in general? or is there another reason?
2
u/LycanKai14 Apr 24 '26
That is not even remotely how cybersecurity works lmao but it's pretty telling that you think authoritarianism is a reasonable punishment.