The Guardian

Latest news, sport, business, comment, analysis and reviews from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice

Carrick joins Wilcox under the bus after Manchester United’s latest night in crisis | Max Rushden

Bruno Fernandes followed Lisandro Martínez in revolt after his team’s 4-1 defeat to Como in the Champions League

You have to credit Manchester United. Your local rivals have turned the Premier League into an almost meaningless farce. We are questioning the validity of anything we’ve seen over the past 20 years; wondering how many goals Erling Haaland will get in the Championship. We are looking at the league table from second position down and wishing we’d invested in inflatable bananas a month ago.

And yet here comes the Old Trafford machine: from players to the captain to the manager to the director of football, to the director of the director of football, to a minority owner who feels the UK is being “colonised by immigrants”, to debt-leveraging majority owners who take vast sums out of the club and are collectively saying hold my Ineos-sponsored high-performance wellness immune boost smoothie.

Continue reading...

Bill Gates kwam niet naar Leeuwarden, waar drie rechters zich bogen over de aanklacht dat de mondiale elite met Covid-19 genocide wilde plegen

In Leeuwarden wordt een zaak over complottheorieĂ«n rond Covid-19 behandeld. Zeven burgers dagen onder anderen Bill Gates, Mark Rutte en Hugo de Jonge voor vermeende vaccinschade en ‘genocide’. Intussen waarschuwt de landsadvocaat voor het gevaar van „ongefundeerde persoonlijke verwijten”.

VK: Voorpagina

Volkskrant.nl biedt het laatste nieuws, opinie en achtergronden

Een nutsvoorziening als het spoorvervoer is niet gebaat bij jaarlijkse commotie over de prijzen

We moeten meer bier drinken, anders verzuipen de poppodia

Belaagd Internationaal Strafhof wint Europese Sacharov-prijs voor de mensenrechten

Belaagd Internationaal Strafhof bekroond met Europese Sacharovprijs voor de mensenrechten

404 Media

404 Media is an independent media company founded by technology journalists Jason Koebler, Emanuel Maiberg, Samantha Cole, and Joseph Cox.

AI Is Changing Everything About Hacking. No One Knows What Happens Next

AI Is Changing Everything About Hacking. No One Knows What Happens Next

For much of the last month, many of the cybersecurity experts I talk to and follow have been posting like they are very scared. Many have been warning of an AI-powered “Black Swan” event, have been alarmed by the number of vulnerabilities suddenly discovered, and of the apparent power of AI agents and large language models more broadly to find and exploit previously unknown bugs. 

The rhetoric has ranged from worried-but-measured (things are about to get weird), to run-of-the-mill advice like update your software and make sure you have two-factor authentication on, to vagueposting about AI-powered attacks, to things like ‘the internet was nice while it lasted,’ to outright prepper-level terror. 

To give you a sense of what I’m seeing, Matthew Green, a Johns Hopkins professor and one of the most respected cryptographers in the world, posted  “we’re in the part of the movie where you need to throw whatever you can in the path of the zombies and hope it slows them down,” and “so many people discovering that the whole Internet is dry tinder and the only thing keeping it from burning is the fact that teenagers haven’t found the matches yet,” Green is alluding to the fact that hackers and researchers driving AI tools and agents are getting better at finding and exploiting all sorts of bugs in important systems. I’ve also seen numerous AI employees, as mentioned, go full prepper, suggesting people pull money out of their bank accounts, disconnect from the internet, purchase shelf-stable food, hoard water, put money in gold and cash, and purchase hand-crank emergency radios.

And all those posts came before people using AI-powered tools found vulnerabilities in PHP, the programming language that powers much of the internet. In the last few days, major vulnerabilities or issues have been found in eMudhra (an Indian entity that provides website security certificates), Node.js (an alternative to PHP), Gitlab (a software development platform), Plex (media server software), Railway (a cloud provider), OpenCode (a coding agent platform), and several other companies and services, though, rightfully, none of these has gotten as much attention as the vulnerabilities in PHP, called PHP2Shell, which researchers from Wiz, Calif, and OpenAI discovered using AI. 

Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, a service that has wide insight into the general health of the internet, posted, “In the 10 hours before [PHP2Shell] was publicly announced, across the Cloudflare network we saw thousands of attempts to exploit it. That jumped to tens of thousands in the 45 minutes post announcement, hundreds of thousands within 2 hours, and millions now.” 

So much is happening, and so quickly, that it has been difficult for me — someone who has been reporting and editing stories on security and hacking for a decade — to fully understand what’s going on, to have a sense of what could happen next, or predict where this is going. And I think that that is largely where we are at the moment, as I am writing this. 

But it has become clear that AI, broadly defined, has fundamentally changed both offensive hacking and defensive cybersecurity. This is not because AI has become sentient or because human beings have lost control of it or because of “swarms” of “rogue agents,” but because AI is proving something that we have always known: much of the software that runs the internet, our devices, our accounts, and our lives is vulnerable, or out of date, or has security flaws that human beings never noticed, or was installed by someone at a company who left the company six years ago and has been replaced four times and no one knows how to find them now or how to update it. This doesn’t mean that all of the vulnerabilities that have been found with the help of AI have been obvious or trivial; skilled hackers and researchers, driving AI tools, seem to be better than humans alone at finding vulnerabilities. But, critically, AI and large language models have made it extremely easy to essentially brute force the internet; if every piece of software is a door, AI makes it exceptionally easy to turn turn the knobs of every door to see if it’s unlocked, even on buildings that human beings had never really bothered to try to open. What we are learning at an alarmingly fast pace is that not only are some of the locks easy to pick, in some cases the door is wide open or there’s a giant hole in the wall. The recent spate of people using AI to hack their internet of things devices to run new software shows that, in some cases, it takes essentially no expertise to actually use AI to hack something.

Meanwhile, we've seen the rise of "abliterated" AI models that are designed to not say no and open weights models that can be used for pentesting and potentially offensive hacks without the guardrails that exist in many off-the-shelf commercial models.

In a blog post explaining the PHP vulnerability discovery, OpenAI said the findings highlight “how AI can uncover security flaws with internet-scale impact, but the same capabilities can also help attackers rapidly develop offensive tools and exploits.” OpenAI basically argues that it did all of this research ethically, and that its discovery opened a “Defender’s Window” that allowed governments and critical infrastructure to prepare for the disclosure of the bug. ‘Researcher finds bug, ethically discloses it to company, company fixes it’ is the preferred course of action in cybersecurity, but AI is shortening the window for all of this, is leading more people to do more research more easily, and is making both bug finding and bug fixing much faster. Whether those fixes are actually deployed by individual companies any faster is another, much more complicated question. The answer in many cases is, probably, no. 

AI is also making all of this much more unpredictable. The security company Chainguard was criticized for breaking the embargo on the PHP vulnerability disclosure because it posted fixes for the vulnerabilities several hours before it was officially disclosed. Critics, including the PHP Foundation, said this could have let attackers figure out how to exploit the issues before website owners had a chance to protect their systems. In a LinkedIn post, Chainguard CEO Dan Lorenc said that his company independently found the same bugs by typing “find bad vulnerabilities in PHP” into a frontier AI model. Amazon, meanwhile, said that it saw exploit attempts before the official disclosure. These facts raise questions about whether the bug was exceptionally easy to find, whether the AI models that originally found the vulnerabilities incorporated that information into the model somehow therefore making it easier for someone else to find, or whether there was a leak along the way from someone connected to the disclosure process. Any option is concerning.

After the PHP2Shell vulnerabilities were discovered, some infosec experts started calling this “Black October,” and highlighted the fact that the National Security Agency, the Prime Minister of Japan, and various governments around the world told people to patch their websites and services immediately, and to take down services that couldn’t be patched. 4chan, several Wikimedia services, and Archive.org were all temporarily taken offline so that they could be updated. 

As The Atlantic has already suggested, one of the biggest impacts of PHP2Shell could be the fact that many historic websites can’t or won’t be updated, may be proactively pulled offline, might eventually be hacked, and might never come back. The link rot could be horrendous, and a lot of history could be lost. 

For such a high-profile incident, most of the actual impacts thus far have been related to the proactive patching or removal of potentially insecure websites, and we have not seen immediate, widespread exploitation of the bug. Various low-effort, LLM-developed exploits have been dropped online; many of them will not work. A blog post called “There isn’t an easy exploit for this PHP vulnerability,” written by Elias Taylor, quickly went viral and was dissected on Hacker News, especially by people pointing out that the website eliastaylor.com had been recently registered and that it wasn’t clear who Elias Taylor was. 404 Media reached Taylor by Signal; he said “I am real and on a delayed train.” 

“Lots of people are being tricked by AI into thinking they have an exploit when they don't, because they can't read or understand what the LLM gave them,” Taylor told 404 Media. “It doesn't appear to be anywhere near as exploitable as the other ‘stop the world’ vulnerabilities i.e log4j, heartbleed. But patch your servers, it’s still a vulnerability. Please do not paraphrase me as saying ‘there is no vulnerability’ for any reason. There is, and people should patch.” 

Dan Guido, the CEO of Trail of Bits, a well-respected cybersecurity company that partners with OpenAI on the Patch the Planet initiative, posted that his company had created “a working exploit,” and that “Will Tan built it in 1 day with Codex, drawing on ~10 years of system security and vulnerability research. AI accelerates exploit development. Knowing how to turn a bug into a shell still takes expertise. AI makes that expertise more productive.” 

It should also be noted that Taylor’s other blog post is called “Anything connected to the internet is going to get hacked to pieces,” which includes the lines “software engineers have spent the past 40 years writing vulnerable, dogshit software. LLMs are easily above the bar needed to break into said software.” 

It remains unclear, at the moment, what the ultimate impact of all of this is going to be, or where we’ll be in one hour, one week, one year, or 10 years. But AI is changing how cybersecurity and hacking works. It is making finding and exploiting bugs faster and easier. We’re about to find out how insecure the internet really is. 


AI Is Already 'Amplifying the Destruction' of War

AI Is Already 'Amplifying the Destruction' of War

The UN met this week to discuss, among other things, the threat of autonomous weapons.

“The technology is developing at a pace that is very concerning,” Laurent Gisel, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) legal warfare team, told 404 Media. Gisel was in NYC this week to address the UN about all the things that are driving conflict across the planet. His prepared remarks include a statement on the illegal arms trade, nuclear weapons, mines, and – of course – AI.

Autonomous weapons have been a hot topic at the UN this year. In September, the UN attempted to pass a treaty that would govern the use of killer AI weapons. Diplomats from Russia and the US stripped it of its power. 

But the UN has pressed forward. On Tuesday, the international governing body announced a new initiative that would grapple with the issue. But, as Gisel said: “multilateral processes take quite some time” and  “we already see the effects on the battlefield.” 

AI is already picking targets and killing people. Gisel said the technology is “amplifying the destruction, amplifying the violation of the law, amplifying the humanitarian harm caused by conflicts.”

Israel used an AI powered by Microsoft to pick targets in Gaza. In Ukraine, AI-powered Russian drones are deciding which humans to kill. The United States military is pitching itself as an “AI-first” fighting force. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced Project Meridian, an initiative to guide the AI-powered autonomous weapons of the future. Three of Meridian's leads are Elon Musk, defense contractor Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich.

For Gisel, one of the biggest dangers of AI is how fast it is. A core selling point for the tech is that it can help commanders make decisions faster. But that also accelerates the pace of mistakes. “Targets are created at higher speed and higher frequency, and are actually then prosecuted quicker, and with that give us great concerns in terms of the level of human control that is retained,” he said. “The human is supposed to remain in the loop.”

The human does not always remain in the loop. The Israel Defense Forces told journalists it did not thoroughly vet the kill lists generated by Lavender, the AI system it used to pick targets in Gaza. “It's known in the [civilian world] [...] that humans tend to trust the systems,” Gisel said. “That it's more the case when the humans are tired, when the humans are under stress, when the humans have to deliver quickly, and that's of course exactly the situation in which soldiers are in. So all of that gives us a lot of concerns in terms of retaining control on the use of force in armed conflict.”

AI boosters often pitch AI as an “easy button,” a way for people to brute force a complicated task and get it over with. But the consequences are much different when someone in Silicon  Valley is parsing spreadsheets or reverse engineering code  than when they’re prosecuting a war in the Middle East.

“That's something that the developers of those systems don't necessarily realize either, because some of those systems are developed by technological companies very far away from the battlefield, and they are not naturally all developed for battlefield use,” Gisel said.

International humanitarian law is an ever-evolving legal negotiation between world powers meant to limit the devastating effects of war. It’s imperfect and countries with vast armies like the US and Russia often do not abide by it. The ICRC, which Gisel represents, exists explicitly to shape these rules and laws. Some of the laws are old, far older than AI, but according to Gisel humanitarian law applies to “all weapons, means, and methods of warfare. Those of yesterday, those of today, and those of tomorrow.”

Beyond the opportunity to code humanitarian law into AI, Gisel said there should be new rules and regulations for the new technology. “Not to prohibit them all, but to prohibit specific categories of autonomous weapon systems and put specific restrictions on others,” he said.

"...Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very, very much difficult to put it back in the bottle"

But he does have redlines. The first is any AI support system that removes a human being from the kill chain. “That requires specific limits and guardrails and restrictions from our perspective,” he said.

“The other type of autonomous weapon system that we recommend prohibiting is those that would target human beings directly, where the target profile is the human being, as opposed to a tank, weapon systems, or another typical military objective, and the reason why is based on ethical concerns, humanitarian concerns, and a moral line,” he added.

Autonomous weapons have existed for a long time. Some US warships have gatling guns that track and destroy incoming targets automatically. The difference is that those weapons track ships and missiles, not human beings.

According to Gisel, one problem with autonomous weapons that target humans or AI support systems that pick targets is that they’re unpredictable. He said banning unpredictable weapons should be a non-brainer. “Military discipline is about your forces [...] delivering the commander's intent,” he said. “If you have a weapon that is unpredictable in its effect, how can you deliver the commander's intent?”

Data Centers Are War Targets Now
"Why have we gotten to the point where we have permitted militaries of various states to use civilian commercial data centers for their military purposes?"

But it’s been a sticking point in negotiations. “We would have thought, military considerations, would align. But actually, that has also faced quite some pushback. Strangely enough,” he said. He spoke about the negotiations in August and September from earlier in the year. “There were references in the last proposal by the chair of the group on precisely all those questions: that the autonomous weapon systems need to be reliable, explainable, understandable, and predictable. And all of that was taken out by some states.”

Gisel also opposes AI in nuclear command and control. In 1983, the Soviet Union’s early warning systems reported that the US had launched a nuclear weapon at the country. Soviet lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov decided the computer had made a mistake and decided not to report the attacks up the chain. He was right.

“States will continue to use satellite systems and therefore algorithms that go with those satellites,” he said. “But it's so important to ensure that it remains entirely under human control and a really meaningful human control.”

While the UN deliberates and the ICRC wrangles with how to regulate all this, the wars continue and military forces continue to embrace AI. “That's why it's urgent to have decisions being made by the international community on what to prohibit and what to restrict [...] once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very, very much difficult to put it back in the bottle,” he said.

Gisel said the world needs to act now. “Otherwise, it's the technology that will decide what is acceptable, and that's not the world we want to live in, right?”


xiffy

Public posts from @xiffy@mastodon.nl

Als we nou eens ophouden de gewone tijd "wintertijd" te noemen.
Einde zomertijd? Normale tijd.
Met je wintertijd. pleur eens op.

Onze zomertijd loopt 1 uur 40 voor op de zonnetijd, met dank aan nazi Duitsland, we horen eerder in de Engelse tijdzone dan de midden Europeese tijd.
En in Spanje is het nog erger.

Trump’s Big Lie about Ukraine

Original Mastodon Post

I wish i could write like Timothy Snyder, read his blog.
Trump’s Big Lie about Ukraine.
snyder.substack.com/p/trumps-b
#Ukraine #NATO #Trump #Europe #Geopolitics #timothysnyder