Comment by lifeisloving
6 hours ago
Its overblown in the sense that 70% of the internet was not in fact vulnerable, as widely reported. And not everyone is a hackor because they have access to llms. Go look at normie coverage from people like Linus tech tips and you'll see them saying how millions of servers were under attack by script kiddies with llms, amd how llms are so dangerous.
The whole thing was basically a psyop, whether intential or not idk but Califs research was funded in part by OpenAI so there's that.
I agree. There's nuance to it. I believe the CVE was overblown, and I also believe that it is a severe vulnerability that should be addressed ASAP. 2 things can be true at once.
It was OpenAI's marketing that hyped up the vulnerability to the point that guys on my hockey team saw it in the news and were asking about it. There doesn't need to be mainstream articles about it, these kinds of vulnerabilities happen every year. Just patch and move on.
The CVE was not overblown. It's correctly marked as a 9.2.
Random bloggers jumped on it and said dumb blogger things. That is all.
This is one of the worst vulns ever and the security response from the people who actually secure things for a living was entirely warranted regardless of whether some blogger thought it was the AI apocalypse or not.
This was a vulnerability worse than Heartbleed. Did they hear about Heartbleed?