logoalt Hacker News

magicalhippotoday at 9:59 AM11 repliesview on HN

Key point is that Claude did not find the bug it exploits. It was given the CVE writeup[1] and was asked to write a program that could exploit the bug.

That said, given how things are I wouldn't be surprised if you could let Claude or similar have a go at the source code of the kernel or core services, armed with some VMs for the try-fail iteration, and get it pumping out CVEs.

If not now, then surely not in a too distant future.

[1]: https://www.freebsd.org/security/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-26:08...


Replies

ogigtoday at 12:17 PM

Setting up fuzzing used to be hard. I haven't tried yet, but my bet is having Claude Code, today, analyze a codebase and suggest where and how to fuzztest it and having it review the crashes and iterate, will produce CVEs.

show 1 reply
lateforworktoday at 5:02 PM

> get it pumping out CVEs.

Is that a good thing or bad?

I see that as a very good thing. Because you can now inexpensively find those CVEs and fix them.

Previously, finding CVEs was very expensive. That meant only bad actors had the incentive to look for them, since they were the ones who could profit from the effort. Now that CVEs can be found much more cheaply, people without a profit motive can discover them as well--allowing vulnerabilities to be fixed before bad actors find them.

show 2 replies
fragmedetoday at 10:08 AM

> Credits: Nicholas Carlini using Claude, Anthropic

Claude was used to find the bug in the first place though. That CVE write-up happened because of Claude, so while there are some very talented humans in the loop, Claude is quite involved with the whole process.

show 2 replies
muskstinkstoday at 2:00 PM

You might want to watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sd26pWhfmg

Claude is already able to find CVEs on expert level.

show 4 replies
Cloudeftoday at 11:59 AM

You can let agent churn unattended if you have some sort of known goal. Write a test that should not pass and then tell the agent to come up with something that passes the test without changing the test itself.

For this kind of fuzzing llms are not bad.

show 1 reply
Foobar8568today at 3:25 PM

Look at Xbow which spawned a few "open source" competitors.

themafiatoday at 6:54 PM

They tried. It didn't work that well:

https://red.anthropic.com/2026/zero-days/

show 2 replies
mentalgeartoday at 4:40 PM

it' s called brute force .

show 2 replies
wslhtoday at 4:50 PM

While it's great to clarify, LLMs are actually finding bugs and writing exploits [1][2]. There are more example though.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47589227

[2] https://xbow.com/

show 1 reply
cryptbetoday at 4:24 PM

>Key point is that Claude did not find the bug it exploits.

It found the bug man. You didn't even read the advisory. It was credited to "Nicholas Carlini using Claude, Anthropic".

show 1 reply
petcattoday at 10:16 AM

> have a go at the source code of the kernel or core services, armed with some VMs for the try-fail iteration, and get it pumping out CVEs.

FreeBSD kernel is written in C right?

AI bots will trivially find CVEs.

show 1 reply