Basically, we are entering the ransomware apocalypse. It is insane what a godsend gen-AI has been to the cybercrime sector. When all you need to do is make something good enough to fool some of the people some of the time, genAI is perfect.
Things that used to work reliably - like trusting google ads or sponsored links not to be malvertizing sites - are meaningless now that gangs can trivially spin up networks of thousands of fake interacting sites and linked profiles to sneak by fraud detection. Phishing attacks are ridiculously sophisticated, combining voice, text, and video impersonation. Supply chain attacks are going to mean package managers are handgrenades. Ransomware gangs are running full on SaSS services allowing script kiddies access to big gun material. Attacks that were previously only in reach of nation-state-sponsored actors are now available for peanuts. And all of this is going to worse because of everyone and their dog using gen-AI to pump out huge amounts of vulnerable code. And then there is the world of prompt engineering for data exfiltration...
If you are young and wanting a promising trade in tech, security would absolutely be a good choice. Shit is going to get CRAZY.
Yes, but you can't be a CISSP or SOC monkey - that has no future.
You need to be an actual Software Engineer who understands development fundamentals, OS internals, web dev fundamentals, algorithms, etc as well as offensive and defensive concepts.
To many "cybersecurity" graduates in North America aren't even qualified to do L1 IT Helpdesk, which is a shame because the IT to Security talent pipeline is critical (along with the SRE, SWE, and ML to security pipeline).
Cybersecurity is basically a wholistic architectural review of software that takes business, engineering, and operational context into account to make a qualified judgment about risk.
1) One can no longer trust things out on the web. 2) One no longer needs things out on the web.
For 1), I hope the defense mechanism kicks in time to bake security into our computing culture and pervades throughout the stack.
I assume you mean software, because we haven't been trusting other things on the web already for decades.
As for software, everybody interested knew about inherent insecurity of supply chain of modern software but the solutions proposed were too expensive. We need an order of magnitude more money lost for organizations to start switching from today's security theater to a model with security built in.
Even though we were aware of the insecurity of the supply chain, 1) In practice we tend to ignore it except for mission critical cases. We still do. 2) Autonomous vulnerability/exploitation at scale was difficult and reserved for high value targets.
What you said will be accelerated by 2) now.
The Web is a rather different beast, but the question is not "can you trust the Internet", but "can you trust a random website", and now even "can you trust a previously trustworthy website".
You of course should not trust any pictures or videos as critical evidence, they should be corroborated by other means. But this has been true for several years now.
Not in this world. It would create friction in the money printing machines.
I personally would still recommend software engineering. Security in far majority of places is still checkbox and cost driven. Outrage happens around incidents, but rarely are people willing to invest meaningful in their people. Security SaaS on the other hand, is doing great, so anything driving revenue there is good.
If AI is capable of performing these attacks, what would stop AI from replacing the security engineers?
Because the threat model is one-sided - if an AI attack fails, the controller simply moves to the next target. If an AI defense fails, the victim is fucked.
Therefore, there is still value in being the human in Cyber Security (however you are supposed to capitalise that!)
There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans. The things that attackers can do require no humans in the loop.
Why? Your logic applies equally well to humans. If the AI attacker fails they move onto the next target, if the human defence fails the victim is fucked.
> There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans.
Which things would you point to here?
This was always the case? Security is asymmetric and attacker only needs to succeed once.
Geopolitics is the cause of the recent uptick in activity. Many of these groups are state sponsored or just fronts for nation-states themselves. genAI just makes it easier for people further down the chain to go after low hanging fruit.
The most significant impact genAI is having on infosec is creating work for those people in infosec through vibe coding and turning untested AI systems loose on internal networks. genAI just lets developers and admins shoot themselves in the foot faster. genAI is an artificial intern.
Compare how fast real attackers could iterate vs the defenders.
(I do realize the irony of writing this on HN, but I digress)
This was exactly the reason why GPT-2 was restricted for general release in 2019.
Check out section 4 - https://cdn.openai.com/GPT_2_August_Report.pdf
I recall there being Malvertising campaign problems ~12-15 years ago or so, and then they seemed to get on top of it.
> on April 7, 2026 … U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell convened an urgent, in-person meeting in Washington with the chief executives of [major US banks] to brief them directly on the cyber risks posed by [Anthropic’s] Mythos
Then a similar meeting happened with the Canadian Financial Sector Resiliency Group (i.e. the Bank of Canada, the Canadian government’s Department of Finance, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (Canada’s FDIC) and Canada’s six major banks).
Multiple central banks don’t usually do that right?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/anthropics-new-ai-mo...
1. Fear that a major vulnerability is found in a commonly used software package that puts multiple major banks and e-commerce sites at risk
2. Fear that major vulnerabilities are found in multiple, widely used software packages that lead to market downturn as IT company stocks crash.
Probably others as well. Sounds more like a brief on worst-case scenarios that may happen and how they would effect the US banking sector. This is an important mid-year election this year too, so any big economic shock would be bad for the GOP.
No, traditional western finance isn't like a unified database, but rather many controlled by different parties in different countries. In theory you could write it back, but it's closer to bittorrent - if someone downloads a song from you then you can't just take it back.
Some stuff can be voided and there are clearing house mechanisms but if money moves fast enough across enough borders then getting it back is near impossible
Companies need to get serious about levels of security. Only some things need to be protected, and you have to accept a substantial level of inconvenience and cost for those items. In my aerospace days, we had a bidding rule of thumb that running a project at SECRET doubled the cost. Running a project at TOP SECRET had an even bigger cost multiplier. A surprising amount of material was not classified at all, for cost reasons.
Banks and credit card processors get this. Most other businesses don't.
The point is that the people, who self-identify as the ones the author is supposedly asking for help, are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room so they can feel smug. Just like your "but i read about every incident mentioned, where's my cookie"
More convenient is to only allow internet access from ephemeral VMs connected to via RDP or similar protocol.
More or less, I am the attractive resume, and: the game has changed folks.
For what it is worth, I am taking my ball and going home in about 12 months. I've saved enough, locked in a perma-middle class lifestyle in a great nondescript city, and swapping over to offensive consulting and a AI-free, non-tech trade that won't take too long to get into - think a PA, nurse, plumber, etc.
I'm not quite old enough and with the end of responsibilities as to FIRE, but I can read the writing on the wall enough to understand an AI-proof FI needs to be locked in before everyone else realizes the same. Many others in sec are feeling this.
I think tech will find security pros willing to throw themselves into the fray for pay and optimism. There are others like me who are extracting their final nuts. There are others who have golden-handcuffed themselves into this ride with their mortgages and private school tuitions. And I'm sure some others will stick it out. There will also be an AI-enabled version of sec eng soon enough.
But if private sector doesn't wake up to AI integrations - internal doc rollouts hoovering up PII that wasn't supposed to be stored there, externally-facing customer support portals social engineered and pivoted into, PRs via Slack comment via marketing hires who are ATO'd - this is going to be a 1990's-style BBQ where 0days on critical systems are dropped at happy hours at conferences nightly.
And: your security teams are going to be burned out, banking up, and quitting. The risk acceptances, the double-speak, the slow-rolling, the half-baked risk thinking for engineering and product leads, the corners cut, the public endpoints opened up just this one time - that's going to be enough rope, and already is enough, to hang yourself in this offensive context that's building now.
It is deeply humorous that SWE and engineering leadership has worked itself into this position via its AI push to unemploy itself while thinking it's the 1x white collar job exempt from automation threats.
All it'll take is another recession like '08, and the leaves get shaken off the trees finally. Thankfully there is only one (wait, there are two probably), thankfully there are only two-to-three (wait, there are like 10) systemic market threats right now.
Sure, hedge your bets. Get financially secure. But also consider that "nothing ever happens" is usually correct and the world has a way of ensuring things keep going in the direction they have to in order to give stability to the establishment (which we are generally a part of).
So, what can derail AI out of left field? Maybe building DCs for it in Arizona and EMEA can, for one.... choosing very "water-rich" locations there for water-cooled systems.
So, how could this land longterm, assuming AI works sort of good, sort of bad against the use cases? The real questions here for industry people though should be this:
1) How does this play out, over the 5-10 yrs we have to see it occur of trying it/redoing it/trying a new version/going back to the old version, all the while it's occurring over my career, all the while when I have bills to pay and relationships to maintain.
Ans: I think that's a hell of a lot of financial and employment stress induced on us by people who don't understand the tech they're rolling out, the state change that's occurring, and don't need to deal with the consequences. All the while, I go mid career, to late career, dealing with what AI can actually do in the background.
2) What is actually going to work wrt being relevant to my job?
Ans: I think what actually works is the vuln research aspect of AI, feedback loops rapidly, rapidly speeding up on that.
And, what is the most stressful, obnoxious, high burnout part of the job - sec arch and vuln remediation, or IR and vuln response. Both about to go on overddrive, and already are if you're minding bug bounties and IR these days.
3) Has this happened to other industries, how did it go?
Ans: trading, trading, trading, trading. Check it out.
We are, for example, about to grow the reach of tech even further thanks to AI. A large percentage of future warfare, for instance, will now be taken over by tech. If humanoid robots get gud, there's a whole 'nother world of applications that will probably need people to specify, test, improve, etc.
Sure, on the one hand I think the value of writing code will probably go to zero in ten years(although some applications explicitly forbid AI coding like some critical infra or space stuff), but writing code is a small part of many SWE's jobs. AI currently still needs to be told what to build and how to make a cohesive, sensible product. Maybe that changes, maybe it doesn't. But the path to eliminating human work is not short or clear-cut.
I'm not sure if personal assistant or nurse are going to be AI-free. Plumber, welder, bricklayer, pest exterminator, sure. Don't underestimate the downsides of physical labor, though. Low pay and backbreaking.
What writing on the wall? If anything, I think you'll be more needed, not less, in times to come.
Ya I get the need but you miss the point - no, you can't pay me anymore to wade into that and own risk, beyond a consulting context with low skin in the game.
There is a wave of senior leads thinking like this, because the knife's edge of "enough risk to game it for pay" finally tilted too far, and the career has changed.
In terms of going home after work and not yelling at my kids and spouse due to work stress due to the 10th 0day in a week on my corporate VPN/my retail-facing app/my..., there's a real QoL issue to consider. Many outside of security consistently misunderstands the mental health/career satisfaction/pay triad.
"Consulting, if you're not a part of the solution there's money to be made prolonging the problem" - Despair.com :)
/i'm a consultant
(Edit: Word of warning though, my father was a bricklayer and he also screamed at his kids whenever he came home overworked. I'm not saying I know the answer here but every job has its "they don't pay me enough for this shit")
In a situation of triage, "owning risk" is off the table.
I see you haven't hired a tradesman in the USA lately...
Sure, my body would hate me for it, but as a plumber I could make about half what I make as a SWE and given the progressive tax structure and business write-offs I'd probably net a comparable salary.
(Afterthought: Don't forget the time and cost of retraining. I don't doubt your statement that you'll make just as much but I doubt it'll be right off the bat)
I just did some quick research:
- ~4.8 million unfilled cybersecurity roles globally as of 2025–2026
- Global workforce ~5.5 million, but ~10.2 million needed to meet demand
Not to mention the growth in the industry has slowed to ~0.1% year over year and you're seeing those shortages are outpacing the current workforce. Add in the most senior folks like yourself are just noping out and leaving the industry wholesale is troubling and unsettling.
Its not surprising we're seeing an unprecedented level of successful attacks. We simply don't have the resources to keep up with the criminals/hackers out there who are moving significantly faster than the companies they are targeting.
As others have pointed out, I'm not sure how this can get anything other than much worse in the near future.
I hope this all lands somewhere in the middle but honestly who knows at this point.
And if you're planning it, plan it soon b/c vendors like Dropzone are carving out the entry sec eng ops/ir jobs in-house or at the MSPs, and Trail of Bits skills foss on GH are carving out the 2-3x extra $3-400k TC line sec eng roles .
as someone who used to work in cybersec (and is also older), most of the time (in my experiences) it isnt sloppiness.
1) people fight tooth and nail against anything that inconveniences them. security is almost always going to be an inconvenience tradeoff, so it is always fought against. from every person and every department. rolling out 2fa was worse than pulling teeth, despite it being a single button press ("approve") on the phone, once or twice a day (or less). c-suite is the worst, demanding exclusions and bypasses. its hard to say no to your bosses boss when they refuse to use a password manager, refuse to setup 2fa, or whatever the case is.
2) security offers no immediate or visible return on investment. so, it gets little to no positive attention by c-suite and even less budget. you end up with underpaid, under-qualified, over-worked people trying to figure out which thing they might be able secure out of the 10 things that need securing. half of them will be tied up trying to explain to someone why they cant use the company name as their password or begging someone to use the password manager.
even here, a forum of hackers, security is often put in scare quotes and almost always mentioned beside the word "theater". people brag about still running windows 7, because it was the last good windows. antiviruses arent needed. X security feature is just a lie so that company Z can control my device. people get big mad when a company rolls out mandatory 2fa. and so on.
edit: case in point, on this thread a comment was just posted with "I think you can argue that cybersecurity doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things."
If that was all it was, people would be a lot less annoyed by it.
Reminds me of the time I accidentally entered my bank PIN into my washing machine and hackers ran off with $500 of my money.
What puzzled me most was the time and energy put into the attack, all for the off chance of a successful attack. Security footage showed them removing my washing while I was at work and replacing it with one the hackers controlled. This "phishing machine"-- as I now call it-- was apparently fitted with some kind of LoraWAN device waiting for me to unwittingly enter my PIN to unlock. Something my washing machine never asked me to do before, btw, but I did it anyway (like an idiot).
I changed my bank PIN, but I still use the old PIN to run the phishing machine-- funny enough it's fully functional and in fact works better than the old one.
All said, the hackers probably lost $1000 on the deal. Police said this is a very common attack on washing machine buttons throughout the Southeast, so I'm wondering if part of our current economic stagnation is due hackers going into bankruptcy from this.
This is the key. No incentive to change. It's always "the hacker's fault" and never "the manufacturer's negligence" or "the developer's carelessness" or "the user's gullibility." Combine this with the currently-prevailing Don't Blame The Victim mentality, and it's the perfect environment for never improving cybersecurity.
The wolf is seen as ever-present. Failure to consider the wolf when choosing building materials has consequences.
It blows my mind that this story has been part of our culture for centuries, yet we apply exactly the opposite model to cybersecurity.
Thank goodness for all the other layers... the firewall is just doing basic hygiene. The SASE and zero trust policies are doing the heavy lifting.
No one want's to follow any rules and when caught out do not want to take respnsibility for their own actions.
Since it was an open wifi, I hope we get nailed for hosting child porn or cryptocoin scams... ffs
Wait, what?!?! I gotta hear this story. I have so many questions like how in the hell do you casually smuggle in not one, but several Starlink dishes?
Didn't even notice until the wifi rogue detector flagged the SSID due to it's relative strength (we're in a highly contested area for 2.4 and 5 Ghz).
Good news: All the data of elected officials will be public soon, and we may finally get some regulation.
I don't think the claims about capability are ridiculous. The idea that the general capability is proprietary and that it will be exclusive to the trusted partners of one company is ridiculous.
Will it? All the big companies are invested in AI anyway; the people getting exclusive access to this are going to be under an NDA anyway.
It will leak eventually, but the news that is isn't much better than current models news may not be enough to dispel the original claims.
Say in 10 years, once we have things like a Claude Mythos (or better) model running on "real time" at the speed of how Taalas runs ollama now.
I have a feeling that "cyberspace" (however we want to call it) won't matter anymore. "Computing" won't matter anymore. Say, I want to implement a Massive Multiplayer Lemmings like game, it's done at the snap of my fingers. Say I want to find a way to "crack" X software? done. Say I want to find a vulnerability in Y website? easy peasy. Say I want to build a "Powerpoint" clone, done (not that it matters, as making a presentation will be as simple as saying "Mythos5, make a presentation about X,Y,Z with nice and meaningful transitions".
Same with music, video, images, etc. Once everything can be created automagically... what happens? (say, "Make me a film like the original John Wick but with the wit and style of Kingsman, make a young Sean Connery the main actor).
So, ultimately cyberspace will be so chaotic with the current "rails", that it will be completely different to what we know now.
At the risk of being booed here in HN, I also have a hunch that the more we go there, the more stuff like "trustless computing" or "proof of N" (having to SPEND something, some real life, finite effort, to do things online) will gain more force. Somehow, Hashcash was conceived to deal with spam/automation type of attacks, so I assume a version of that will have to be used to "structure" Cyberspace in the future.
My hypothesis is that this will take us back to "the real world" due to "surfeit": Kind of what happens once you add a "trainer" to a game and suddenly you have all the money/resources, and then it becomes boring. Once the "digital" stuff is solved, we will go back to the real world.
Very exciting times.
OTOH, such a powerful model might be able to do formal verification practical, too. So your model might say "Can't get RCE on that software because the model that developed it also created a proof that that's impossible".
> Once everything can be created automagically... what happens?
The people who can come up with novel concepts would matter a lot more then than they do now. Like how image models can create pictures in the style of van Gogh, but they wouldn't if van Gogh hadn't existed. So we'd need "van Goghs" to come up with the new things that the models would create a thousand varieties of.
> Somehow, Hashcash was conceived to deal with spam/automation type of attacks, so I assume a version of that will have to be used to "structure" Cyberspace in the future.
"Proof of N" doesn't need to involve spending something. It could be "proof of citizenship" (or some other "proof of offline identity") combined with rate-limiting per identity. The right cryptographic protocols could do it without revealing your identity to the service you're interacting with.
"Mythos5, make a presentation about X,Y,Z with nice and meaningful transitions"
Lmao that cybercriminals are closing M&A deals to create vertically integrated SaaS companies.
Do you think anyone was made redundant through kinetic means?
> The silence has not broken in mainstream public discourse. It has clearly broken in private, at the top of the U.S. government, in classified briefings and emergency convenings the public is mostly not seeing.
> The historian’s question is no longer whether the cyber community is being quiet. The historian’s question is why the public conversation is so thoroughly out of sync with what is clearly being discussed behind closed doors at the level of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
> That obscurity is the part of this section that matters most. It is not the AI numbers. It is the silence around them.
And yet, the public conversation around them has been quiet to the point of being strange.
There's a lot current events that once would have been considered historical: trip around the Moon, war out of nowhere, unprecedented explosion of kleptocracy l, enormously scandals and so long. Noone of these are moving much of the needle among general public.
Why? I think such indifference or rather apathy/torpor is a result of people becoming tired of constant stream of crises (either imaginary or real) that we're being flooded by. The capacity to react with something more than a shrug is finite. And I think we are being drained.
The fact that humanity sent people back to the moon barely even registered. Crazy times.
Are you sure that people would have cared much even in better times?
Although I'm just as subject to the fatigue as everyone else, this just isn't a pursuit that I see as important.
TBH I think dealing with global warming, cancer, homelessness, AI impact on human cognitive development, and the loneliness epidemic are far higher priorities.
I mean, part of why they cut the Apollo program short was because nobody cared back then either, after the first ~2 landings, so they muddled on a while longer but support simply vanished in a hurry. It'd be surprising if people started caring more now. I suppose if we land people on the moon it'll be a bit more of an event than this one (the landing, not the launch) but I'd expect interest to plummet again after that. Hopefully they have better-selected video feeds for the landing than they did for this launch, I had my kids watch it and it was bad enough I think I'll have trouble getting them to sit down for another NASA launch stream.
I think it's more that the impact of all these constant string of "crises" ends up having very little impact on the average American's lifestyle. Groceries a bit more expensive, gas higher, rent continues to creep up. Some giant incomprehensible national debt number gets higher. Those all suck and people complain about them - but they are complaining about them in packed bars while they drink $7 beers and eat $30 burgers and fries.
You can only yell so many times that the world is ending before people tune it out since their day to day lives are largely unchanged. Just look at the focus on complaining about almost irrelevant things like the price of eggs or whatever totally irrelevant culture war topic of the day. It's societal bike shedding.
I am firmly of the belief (and have been for quite some time) that the "average" middle class American is going to need severe pain - as in widespread great depression level pain - before anything really changes at all at the ground level. Americans have simply become so used to living the lifestyle being part of an insulated hegemonic superpower empire that they have taken that for granted as how things generally will always be no matter what happens. There is zero consideration for the amount of sheer effort, will, and constant vigilance it took to build and maintain such a state of being.
Or put another way: Inertia is a hell of a drug.
They aren't tired, they're distracted. X/TikTok/et. al. are all fire and motion mechanisms.
It's the phones, humans are being DDoSd. We need government intervention against many aspects of modern technology.
The profit motive works when it comes to reducing manufacturing costs and passing some of that on to consumers through the beauty of competition. It doesn't work so great when it's X training a transformer model to maximize the amount of time you spend doom scrolling so they can feed you gambling advertisements.
Anthropic et al having better exploit dev is a capability which aids both sides. But regardless, most exploits use n-days not 0-days.
i dont think its that strange. there are multiple wars raging on, with many people fearing the breakout of a global conflict. a giant pedophile ring has been exposed that no one in power seems interested in doing anything about. prices for everything are haywire. markets are an absolute rollercoaster, hinging completely on one mans late night tweets. and so on.
people just dont have the bandwidth to also learn about what an npm or github is, and why a hack of it is important. news stations are going to pick the news that results in the most people tuning in to watch. that is war, not whatever a mercor is.
the non-tech (and many of the tech) people in my life are also just plain tired of hearing about hacks. they have heard that their information has been stolen 10 times or whatever in the last 5 years. they have heard 100s of "this company was hacked" stories. "another hack? who cares?".
To the public this becomes like the risk of being hit by lightning or being in a car accident, just background noise we avoid thinking about as much as possible. It is just the cost of living in this economy.
But that's not true. The European Union and many other countries are taking extreme measures to ensure that what happened in the United States never happens with them and they are introducing a bunch of different measures to strengthen control over society, the media sphere, and other measures to ensure that no pedophile rings could be exposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_Rother...
"A 2024 report on child sex exploitation in Rochdale from 2004 to 2013 found that there was "compelling evidence" of widespread abuse, and that Greater Manchester Police and Rochdale Council had failed to properly investigate these cases, leaving girls "at the mercy of their abusers". While there were successful prosecutions, the report said that the investigations carried out during the period covered by the report only "scraped the surface" of what had happened, and that many abusers had gone unpunished."
the comment you are replying to is written sarcastically, ending with: "to ensure that no pedophile rings could be exposed"
in other words, they agree with what you have written. your reply appears to assume the opposite.
And of course vuln finding is now automated so even if we do a good job locking it down this morning, nothing will not keep out the next wave tonight.
Plus, our current political atmosphere encourages digital chaos, for example gutting CISA.
For a lot of normal people that's not the case and as long as they don't get someone actually stealing their identity etc. they aren't really concerned about these kind of things
This was one of the things Trump got 2024 elected on - many Republican voters were extremely keen on this being addressed. I'm glad Trump's fumbled it now so the Democrats are interested in addressing it, though for the wrong reasons.
They're not any more interested in addressing it than the existing administration - it's just a talking point like everything else. Ammunition to get elected and then put away in a dark closet.
I think we can assume that the alphabet agencies already got their hands on this and are working to use it. No more backdoors necessary, they can crack open every computer on earth with this.
Did OS/software vendors get a list of their vulnerabilities? Will they ever?
[1]: https://idtechwire.com/opinion-in-an-ai-world-every-attack-i...
These were all funded 2-3 years ago (heck I participated in some of these). Companies only go out of stealth when they are publicly announcing their Series A (usually right around the time of a major buyer event like BSides/RSA or DEFCON/Blackhat.
Funding rounds usually happen around 5-6 months before they get announced on TechCrunch or Calcalistech becuase such information are a signal to competition about a specific approach. It's also a massive distraction from building, because then you have to deal with media, press releases, and actually have a product marketing team. You don't want to do this until you can hire a couple PMs and PMMs (which is usually around the seed-to-series A transition becuase you will have hit the $5M ARR mark by then).
This how stuff is done here in SV as well and has been for decades.
From this,
https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/cisco-source-code-breach-lea...
It sounds like they were/are using GitHub to host company-private source code, presumably of high-value.
While it's hard to know exactly the setup (e.g. maybe they are running their own instance of GitHub internally), this is your reminder that public clouds are not secure, no matter how much you pay the maintainers of said clouds.
Internal network compromise is of course always possible, but sheesh, it sounds like this list has lots of public cloud failures.
These events aren't new or novel anymore. The fact that the news does or does not report on something is indicative of editorial prerogatives and nothing more.
> This is a curious observation more than a complaint.
We went from 25% of the world population using the internet to now more than 80% are on the internet. More people understand the fundamental issue, and so are uninterested by it, so for-profit publications will not cover it.
What would the consequences for humanity be if every single electronic patient record was leaked onto the internet? Immediately hugely bad for some groups, unfortunately. After a good deal of embarrassment and drama however, some severe, perhaps the net effect is positive. It would most likely facilitate a lot of scientific inquiry. A lot of people, especially in medical deserts, also use Chatgpt as an md. Providing AI companies with high quality medical data is actually a public service.
So it goes for many things in life, and except for financial and destructive wipe attacks, data security is mostly about protecting the IP of incumbents, which is somewhere between irrelevant and a net negative. It's hard to say what the long term consequences of the IP system breaking down would be, but there is a good argument to be made that it's not necessarily bad.
As for individual people, most don't really care or are resigned to the fact that Google already knows everything about them, and probably abstractly enjoy the fact that a major company gets brought down to their reality. Plenty of societies have extremely collectivistic mindsets of public info being shared, like Scandinavian countries having public tax filings, and they work just fine.
I think most people would secretly relish the outcomes of everything leaking everywhere. Just like people relish the Epstein files being released, and probably would have loved an unredacted version being leaked. Secrets are something human beings naturally gravitate towards to dig up and sharing, and this is actually for good, sensible reasons. Evolution has simply favored groups that did not hoard knowledge, at least not internally. There is a reason the scientific method has openness as a virtue, and is arguably one of the pillars that has carried humanity out of the dark ages.
And I'd just like to underline the fact that this is truly a devil's advocate position, not something I'd argue strongly for.
But for the LLM training data company, does that leak matter? I guess that depends on your stance about AI proliferation and safety. But if you don't it's at worst a boost for open source LLMs. Rockstar? A great deal of hard work has surely gone into GTA-6 between all the union busting but, but it hardly matters for humanity what particular game people use to entertain themselves. And the medical device company, although the wipe part is truly just senseless destruction, actually might benefit humanity more if a few bootleg factories of their products appear.
Many of these are very stretched scenarios. But for instance in the case of espionage, the problem is not the fact that people are spying, the problem is that there is a war. And the more nefarious regimes tend to depend more on secrecy and lies in order to perpetuate themselves. If total transparency was applied to all governments equally, most democracies would be positively affected. The problem is not the leakage of the Epstein files. It's that this kind of activity could occur in secret and remained covered up.
I can't believe I have to say this, but you can't simply delete an important facet of society (expectation of privacy) and expect things to turn out alright. People will still have hangups around prudish topics and traditions. And privacy has always worked as an escape hatch for people in bad situations, either locally (controlling parents and partners) or society-wide (facist governments, genocides).
Just because we can imagine a society where this information is public and everything still works, doesn't mean that there's a path from here to there.
I think right now we are waiting for the Morris worm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm) equivalent shock to the system, but it is likely to be much, much worse and much more specific. I expect something that will make DOGE stealing SSNs look kind of tame. Something like every private GitHub exposed, every Visa card data and history exposed, every Mac injected with a rootkit, etc. It's like waiting for the plot from Sneakers to manifest.
For all the security we have built over the last 50 years, it has been impossible (or nearly so) to lock down any web-accessible content. It is a structural issue at a certain level of complexity, the surface area is just far too wide for any focused effort. Aside from direct 0 day vulnerabilities in software there are vulnerabilities in core libraries, frameworks, CI/CD, cloud services, hardware bugs, gaps between services, permission vectors, etc.
The U.S. has relied on the legal system to allow our insane credit card system to persist, where security by obscurity (knowing someone's CC#) is the main deterrent to abuse. I need a complex password to access any website, but CC#s are flying free. I think the combination of easy worldwide vulnerability scanning and U.S.'s focus on pissing every country off is going to lead to significant and unending asymmetrical warfare. If our gov't has been co-opted by big business, big business is going to become the target. As we have seen with Iran with Hormuz and Ukraine with drone strikes, it isn't so hard for small countries to fuck up global systems.
We are entering a 90s-style phase where any script kiddie can cause massive disruptions. Trump likes to threaten NUCLEAR but security issues could potentially cause even more death and destruction - overwhelm the energy grid, open dams, crash air traffic control communications, etc. There is lots of concern over the oligarchy owning AI and keeping it for themselves, but the more immediate risk is that any country can potentially lash out with disruptive actions.
There has been a retreat from globalization since COVID. I wouldn't be surprised if that extends to global internet communications as well. Internet traffic between countries might soon be severely restricted, that's the last line of defense we actually have if this goes as badly as Anthropic is implying.
There does not have to be a term committee or term police for colloquial use, but to me referring to somebody calling it out when terminology makes no sense as “making a stink” says something about the objector.
Words change meaning all the time. I vividly remember when 'coder' was used as a diminutive, much like the later script-kiddie or code-monkey - "A software developer of little skill or knowledge". Today, people habitually call themselves that.
Nowadays I'm not sure anyone is employed writing only HTML and CSS but in the 90s and 00s it was definitely a distinction worth making.
i suppose it is similar to "exponentially" being used when it doesn't mean exponentially.
But these are two different things. If I hear "ten times" I assume the person actually means ten times; when they say "an order of magnitude", I'm aware they might mean 8 or 12.
i thought the order of magnitude is often hipster phrasing, even on HN at times, but, when actually intended, it's like saying floor(log_base10( whatever )), so the ten times thing would have to be "roughly ten times" for example, to be comparable.
Also, in some contexts the base isn't presumed to be 10, of course, though around here in loose jargon that's usually what folks are saying.
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa...