I hope some of these backdoors and/or 0-days being kept under wraps by nation states or corporate espionage companies (Pegasus et al) are being found incidentally through all this.

It’s frustrating to have all these 0days and CVEs to patch for now, but in the long run perhaps we’ll leave with more robust software.

Is it forcing us to "pay off" technical debt or is it starting us on a compulsory endless treadmill of feature-neutral fix-work? Collectively, we just won't know for a while.

It totally feels like the former if you watch it find and fix vulnerabilities or other debt-tasks one after another.

But only so many of these "technical debt" issue are little off-by-one errors that get remedied by a surgically narrow patch.

Many enough require some kind of restructuring or redevelopment of their own and it's going to take time to figure out if AI faces the same dilemma as human developers: where each non-trivial change carries the risk of some new issue, ad infinitum.

If that happens to be the case, and AI isn't able to magically produce perfect software in finite time, then what's really happened is that the threat of hostile AI exploiting our technical debt will force us to always be burning and churning code just to remain a moving target.

It's another "we'll see" thing for now, I think.

I was down voted a lot months ago for saying that a lot of open source software had a false sense of being secure with the assumption that someone else would have audited the code. And this AI auditing is going to make the promise of open source software getting audited by others actually real. Nice to see others waking up to this reality.

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

The amount of e-mails I get of the form "Important information regarding your xxxxx account" (which essentially is just code for "we've been hacked and your data has been stolen") is quite concerning, but not surprising. Security by obscurity was always big in most companies, as long as the bar to carrying out sophisticated attacks was putting a costly IT professional to the task you could be relatively relaxed as no one would bother to hack your stupid little e-shop, but now carrying out such an attack costs a few cents to a few dollars at most, that changes the game entirely and everyone is a target.

This summer I had my Docker registry poisoned with malware artefacts, which again is something that no sane attacker would do before as it required downloading my images, carefully modifying them and then overwriting them, ensuring they work as before. Now it's just a simple prompt away. I am definitely ramping up my defenses, everything that doesn't need to be Internet connected goes behind double VPN and port knocking schemes, essentially making my infrastructure invisible from the outside, all unknown packet types get hard dropped, end-to-end encryption of all internal traffic, web endpoints behind CDN proxies and WAF providers (as much as I hate doing that), double and tripe security mechanisms everywhere, maximum restriction of privileges, ultrafast automated patching and AI based continuous monitoring, audits and interventions. You should also get used to that, this will surely still get much worse as attacker tooling gets better.

Having worked on both sides of the table, the reality is that it is far too easy to game certs like ISO27001. The risk calculation by companies taking that route is changing right out from under them thanks to Ai tools.

The article takes PHP2Shell as the worst offender of the present wave of vulnerabilities but HTTP2Shell/Brotli2Shell was arguably worse. The consequence over at Brotli may very well be the same, but the timeline shows, if anything, that at least part of reality is actually still very much "humans just sitting on vulnerabilities for months or even years". From the timeline: 8 years in the code, 8 months unreleased (but fix in Git) and at least 4 independent researchers finding the problem and pointing it out.

[0] https://www.bugsink.com/blog/http2shell-timeline/

ironically, AI is also making us create a new whole new level of technical debt - where _no one_ has actual understanding of the code being written and we're just trusting the machine

We could rephrase it like this: “AI has removed all the excuses we had not to remove technical debt”

Yes, AI developed code might have vulnerabilities or bugs, but so already has your JSP based web server that has Oracle and God knows what else among dependencies.

It's also introducing a new kind of technical debt much faster.

luckily it will help us paying it off too

personally have started going the other way: AI-assisted microkernels, and only the programming that is actually needed for the problem at hand

my webserver never needed a million lines of code just to pass bytes to other people

And that's the biggest win with AI. With old-fashioned development, it was considered acceptable to defer addressing valid feedback ad infinitum, hiding behind whatever lousy excuse you could come up with. No more.

I'm personally not sharing the connotations of negativity towards software development and the term technical debt. I keep reading implications that most of this has always been in some way preventable, but it really is not that simple. How did nobody find these types of exploits 40 years ago? Why are we suddenly shocked and blame the field for this? I think the majority of people severely underestimate the complexity and seriousness of software. Once that perception stops and the economic incentives are right, we can start to look closer.

Just consider how laughable some working conditions in software are and then come to realize how architecture is shaped by the organization communication patterns and not reality. You will see it in a different light then.

Earlier this year, the cybersecurity firm Calif offered to independently audit PHP, sponsored by OpenAI. Within two weeks, a researcher at Calif, aided by AI tools, found a way to use the out-of-memory bug to run arbitrary code on the host server, allowing a malicious actor to install malware or read critical data. Now, it was no longer a minor bug—it was a critical vulnerability, and the Calif team alerted the PHP foundation to start working on a patch immediately.

So, the headline should read,

"AI is helping us eliminate 40 years of technical debt."

Since AI found the bug, and probably also generated the patch at this point.

An abundance of solutions is a problem for people who sell solutions.

What's hillarious is people vibe coding massive AI apps thinking its not creating tech debt and security holes. If anything, AI is discovering existing holes, and creating them faster than ever before in history.

All those "paying down" technical debt with AI, I would advise reading the code _very_ carefully. Sometimes the "solution" which passes some test or adheres to some described functionality is incredibly narrow / brittle, and/or has failure cases that are non-obvious.

Yes I'm using $latest_model on high, its still not there. Unless your threshold for "fixed" is "the 1M line lean proof runs, we don't know how it works", it still requires a lot of attention, hand-holding, and scrutiny, especially when fixing issues / working around failures (where it tends to shortcut or invent workarounds).

In my opinion, the whole paradigm how we use computers needs to be replaced. It is like the 80s, but now with internet and a thread larger then anything in computer history before. I remember boot sector viruses and stuff.

My approach is https://tix.im/ - not launched yet. But from expedience: modeling everything as workflows of composeable nix flakes (expert systems from programs, skills, agents, workflows and their snippets, DBs blobs, service descriptions, ...) and then run everything in highly isolated environments. It is not only so much more efficient, reduces errors, increases quality, reduces unnecessary cognitive load, ...

I start to move more and more daily tasks into the systems. Even UI programs become interactive workflow steps, which allow me to attach from anywhere back to a task in an environment optimized for the task.

Dependency updates for example, a workflow. A subgraph from a security scanner expert checks each change in the dependency tree.

I'm not going to lie, I'm having a great time thinking at the endless discussions around unsafe languages and the relentless smugness of many practitioners claiming everything was fine as long as the responsible and the skilled (them) were in charge; and let's not forget the formulaic "with great power comes great responsibility" closers.

Well now, Great Responsibles, it's clear you too were out of your collective depth and were all paying for your smug hubris. Perhaps take a bite out of that humble pie you've obviously never tasted?

And you know how are those technical debts created in the first place? More than 40 years of negligence in IT infrastructure.

We've patched more bugs and more vulnerabilities in the last 3 months than entire years at my last job.

I fear it's only going to get worse.

I'm sure the NSA has an eye on the groups that are asking AI about security issues in various popular softwares ...

I think we'll look back at this moment as peak C/C++ before they begin a long, slow decline into irrelevance.

I've been bullish on Rust for years because memory safety is simply too important and Rust can essentially prove an implementation correct and solve a certain class of very important bugs. It doesn't solve every problem and there is a complexity cost.

I've also said that writing multithreaded code is simply too complex. In an era of out-of-order execution, different levels of caching, asymmetric cores, hyperthreading (although this is largely dead now?), branch prediction and having to support multiple architectures it's simply too hard for most people to write correct multithreaded code. Period. If you find yourself as a non-library developer creating a mutex or spawning a thread, somebody has screwed up.

This is also why I think the single-threaded async/await model with post-request teardown of PHP is the correct choice for most people.

We're going to go through a dark period of a lot of 0days. As the article notes, this is paying 40 years of technical debt. It will result in a more secure ecosystem however. I believe this will ultimately also hamper black markets, governments and 3 letter agencies who trade in those 0days.

As painful as this all is, it will ultimately be a good thing, one of the few to come out of AI (IMHO).

Better sooner than later, to be honest.

That's a weird way to say creating 40 years of technical debt per year.

While we're at it, I'd appreciate easy secure authentication of a device without having to pull in a third party authentication provider. Thanks.

The real slop was the human slop we made along the way.

Yeah but AI also helps in lowering the debt ...