[elija]

In some sense, I wonder if non-open-source is "safer" since LLMs can't mass scan the code for exploits.

[overboard2]

Maybe for a while, but there's nothing stopping LLMs from examining disassembler output.

[nly]

That's significantly more challenging for an LLM (and a human)

[lsaferite]

I would caution against thinking it's difficult for an LLM. I've used them in raw data file analysis and they are frequently shockingly good at pulling structures and meaning out of seemingly random data. Disassembled binaries already are structured, so pulling code flow out of that is easier. Mixing that with existing disassembly and inspection tooling and an LLM has what is needed to fast track this kind of vulnerability research. Point being, an LLM with the proper tools can potentially follow code flow from disassembled binaries way easier than a human.

[panzi]

I forgot who it was, but someone on YouTube said LLMs already work hooked up to gidra. If true it's only a matter of time once they find similar things in e.g. Windows. I'll wait half a year to a year (think of embargo) and if there still isn't such work for Windows I'll conclude that LLMs have a problem disassembling binaries.

[Fnoord]

If I was NSA I'd heavily use this feature on my farm in Utah :^)

[panzi]

We should assume that multiple state actors already are using it.

[LtdJorge]

Security through obscurity

[IcePic]

If they don't get scanned, then they also don't get fixed, so if they have the same amount of holes, they will stay vulnerable for longer.