Comment If an individual did any of this hacking by hand (Score 4, Insightful) 32
He would be serving time.
Why hasn't Sam Altman been arrested yet?
Why is OpenAI allowed to continue to operate?
Clearly it's a criminal organization.
He would be serving time.
Why hasn't Sam Altman been arrested yet?
Why is OpenAI allowed to continue to operate?
Clearly it's a criminal organization.
Honestly... Since when reshuffling in a company's upper management is of any interest to anybody other than the people working for that individual at that company?
What next? They're gonna replace Bob at accounting because he didn't use AI to format his Excel sheets?
To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.
The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)
The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.
I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on
a doozie to debug
Well, technically, we're letting Natalie do it, which is, of course, worse in every way imaginable, since she's immune to the sense of embarrassment that sometimes restrains him from acting on every little whim.
To be honest that was actually my first theory, since the bots didn't seem interested in exploring the rest of the domain. I suppose there's no way to know for certain. I concluded that it must be an imbecile's attempt at harvesting, though, because the queries weren't really exploring the string space in any useful way. Here's a sample:
"GET
/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&re&results_&results_pagenum=2980 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=5440&template=41&type HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=33500&templat HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=32640&templ HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&res&results_page&results_pagenum=39300 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_&results_pa&results_pagenum=12340 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_r&res&results_pagenum=6100 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=2920&te HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&nam&results_&results_pagenum=17940 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results&results_pag&results_pagenu&results_pagenum=37720 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=9360&template=41&type_r HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&r&results_pagenum=28040 HTTP/1.1"
"GET/index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_&results_pag&results_pagenum=10400 HTTP/1.1"
The only thing this is fuzzing is the query string parser. It's not testing the limits of string buffers, it's not using interesting characters, it's just brain-damaged. The fact that it's also fetching different page numbers shows it's trying to follow page links and failing badly at doing so.
The site gets plenty of sniffing from garden-variety pests. e.g. this half-hearted attempt to find a framework or two that I don't have:
"POST
/__rsc HTTP/1.1"
"POST/api/auth/session HTTP/1.1"
"POST/api/auth HTTP/1.1"
"POST/__nextjs_action HTTP/1.1"
"POST/.action HTTP/1.1"
"POST/_rsc HTTP/1.1"
"POST/api/auth/callback HTTP/1.1"
"POST/_middleware HTTP/1.1"
"POST / HTTP/1.1"
(of course, none of these URLs exist other than
All this said... I've seen that spammers regularly misconfigure their tools, they'll try to register accounts with names like #[X:\LISTS\NAMES.TXT] and it only makes sense that some other cybercriminals trying to get rich quick have a similar lack of interest in programming shit correctly. Generally people don't turn to script kiddie shit if they have a personality conducive to putting in an honest hard day's work perfecting their craft.
I believe the plan was to give that sobriquet to Lake Michigan, in honour of its decidedly flaccid silhouette.
I had a problem where AI scrapers were absolutely DETERMINED to fish out every possible query string from a search results page. Almost all of the query strings they tried were invalid due to shitty and dysfunctional string substitution. "&page=100" wouldn't be followed by "&page=101", it would be followed by "&pag&pag=1010" or something even more insanely half-baked, until the query strings were like 100+ characters long. It was the technological equivalent of watching HIV mutate in real time.
But the insane thing was that, aside from page number, they were always requesting info about the same other criteria: filtered by the same user, the same page type, and with no text string. So I just took those particular values and started banning logged-out users who requested that combination of criteria.
I figured I'd need to change my tactics in a couple of days once the botnet got bored of that particular page and moved on to requesting bogus entries for another user.
MariaDB> select count(*) from ip_bans;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 671671 |
+----------+
It hasn't.
Humidity is currently 91% in Yangsan.
What the hell is that? Is that a salesman in PC-speak?
City Council member of a non-listed Twin Cities suburb I know:
FBI is involved. Most water systems use one of two control/alert systems that are old and make them easy targets.
All they did was shut down components of the systems e.g., wells/sewer lift stations. Most cities were able to cycle manually to get back up and running. There was not messages warning or ransom of which I am aware.
They could have done a lot more damage if they wanted to, rather than just shutting things down.
I live in Plymouth; there was no city communications about this nor did I see any issues. So, I assume there were no physical disruptions to service.
His podcast Better Offline is squarely targeted at people who are very much online. Indeed his entire gig is the epitome of online living.
If Ed Zitron really felt better offline, he wouldn't be making a living off of a podcast and constant AI bashing.
Not that I necessarily disagree with him though... It's just that the messenger doesn't really befit the message.
If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.
While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.