A single bad actor trying to find a bug in order to achieve a specific aim, might mean that bug is never known by the software creator. However the majority of the public is also likely to not know about the bug.
Public hunting and exposure via security advisories, it's going to lead to a greater awareness of vulnerabilities which I imagine will increase the likelihood of a particular vulnerability being exploited.
The time and effort required to fix a vulnerability is often substantial.
Perhaps we shouldn't be categorical, in our assessment of the merit in finding vulnerabilities in software?
LLMs can find endless combinations of edge cases that are a real bug. Addressing them requires thousands more lines of code. Which creates another set of new edge cases to combine.
At some point you realize recovery is better then prevention, let the bugs happen, but recover from them gracefully.
This is why security reports have the impact section. Every piece of software has an endless stream of bugs, but only a few of them have real effect on the users. It was pretty clear in Web3 contests. Now we see something similar on a much larger scale in all other software.
6 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 20.5 ms ] threadA single bad actor trying to find a bug in order to achieve a specific aim, might mean that bug is never known by the software creator. However the majority of the public is also likely to not know about the bug.
Public hunting and exposure via security advisories, it's going to lead to a greater awareness of vulnerabilities which I imagine will increase the likelihood of a particular vulnerability being exploited.
The time and effort required to fix a vulnerability is often substantial.
Perhaps we shouldn't be categorical, in our assessment of the merit in finding vulnerabilities in software?
At some point you realize recovery is better then prevention, let the bugs happen, but recover from them gracefully.