Rendered at 05:13:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Segv77 4 hours ago [-]
Good enough AI for security auditing feels like asking for "good enough" brakes. There's just no room for complacency.
fovc 3 hours ago [-]
Not sure I follow the analogy, so apologies if I'm reading it backwards, but we do in fact have standards for "good enough" brakes without being brake-maxxers.
Similarly here, I'd argue that a verified implementation with correctness proofs, mechanical translation, and easily auditable theorems seems close to good enough? A lot rides on the Claude-built translator, I suppose, but the trusted code for that project seems to be tiny in comparison to what it would have been 2 years ago!
thephyber 3 hours ago [-]
I suspect you two are using the same words for different terms / connotations.
"Good enough" in colloquial speak usually means the minimum required for some particular requirement.
For security, there is usually no exact threshold that differs between insecure and secure. It's a spectrum that involves costs and tradeoffs, which are subjective value judgements.
A SaaS startup in pre-seed mode with no customers will have VASTLY different value judgements than a bank that handles $trillions in assets. Hence they will make very different security choices and "good enough" will mean very different things in their different sectors.
jessebldr 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
aftbit 2 hours ago [-]
I don't get the analogy. Brakes that are good enough for a Honda Civic driven at regular speeds are not good enough for a fire truck or a race car, but there are in fact standards that are "good enough" for all of those.
firen777 2 hours ago [-]
People on HN have a tendency to shove in analogies where it doesn't need one. Even worse when most of the time the analogies do not make sense.
suhacker256 11 hours ago [-]
This is a great example of how we can actually be using AI to do things better, not just faster
buu700 7 hours ago [-]
I'd argue that the difference is often just semantics. In general, I can do a better job on a given task in a week than a day. If I only have a day, but AI lets me do in that day what would have otherwise taken a week, then the result is better while my time expenditure remains constant.
code-sonar 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nullsanity 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
AndrewKemendo 2 hours ago [-]
It’s over security people
You need to find a new way to do business with the assumption that you’re 100% eventually going to get pwned
So just assume that going forward and you’ll start to rethink your architecture
Cider9986 23 minutes ago [-]
FHE would be nice, but there's a lot of products that could be E2EE today. Plenty of breaches are just server-side files and dumps, there's no excuse for not using E2EE cloud storage.
Databases are much more tricky, but if we're talking a significant shift, it is as good a plan as any. Clearly server trust is not working.
AI is accelerating both sides for defenders and attackers, but mobile clients are already way ahead of typical desktop. Android's desktop mode exists in the OS now but needs a lot of work and more powerful chips before it can replace desktops.
For security against remote attacks, I'd rank clients roughly: GrapheneOS, iOS/iPadOS, stock Android on Pixels, ChromeOS, macOS, Windows, desktop Linux. Prefer more secure clients, always, but now the client is all that's left to trust for content.
Native clients avoid the web E2EE problem and are easier than ever to build. With AI, you can audit the source as often as you want and reproducible builds mean you know that's what you're running.
Similarly here, I'd argue that a verified implementation with correctness proofs, mechanical translation, and easily auditable theorems seems close to good enough? A lot rides on the Claude-built translator, I suppose, but the trusted code for that project seems to be tiny in comparison to what it would have been 2 years ago!
"Good enough" in colloquial speak usually means the minimum required for some particular requirement.
For security, there is usually no exact threshold that differs between insecure and secure. It's a spectrum that involves costs and tradeoffs, which are subjective value judgements.
A SaaS startup in pre-seed mode with no customers will have VASTLY different value judgements than a bank that handles $trillions in assets. Hence they will make very different security choices and "good enough" will mean very different things in their different sectors.
You need to find a new way to do business with the assumption that you’re 100% eventually going to get pwned
So just assume that going forward and you’ll start to rethink your architecture
Databases are much more tricky, but if we're talking a significant shift, it is as good a plan as any. Clearly server trust is not working.
AI is accelerating both sides for defenders and attackers, but mobile clients are already way ahead of typical desktop. Android's desktop mode exists in the OS now but needs a lot of work and more powerful chips before it can replace desktops.
For security against remote attacks, I'd rank clients roughly: GrapheneOS, iOS/iPadOS, stock Android on Pixels, ChromeOS, macOS, Windows, desktop Linux. Prefer more secure clients, always, but now the client is all that's left to trust for content.
Native clients avoid the web E2EE problem and are easier than ever to build. With AI, you can audit the source as often as you want and reproducible builds mean you know that's what you're running.