So that's describing the sane way to go. Problem is security teams aren't "sane".

For example, security team demands we account for CVEs, and we reply we use RedHat so RHSAs are the better curated source and here's all the information.

Nope, they don't "trust" vendors and we should independently account for CVEs. To the extent RHSAs cite CVEs, ok, but they don't speak to *every* CVE (notably, a lot of Android specific CVEs that don't apply to the RHEL builds), and we aren't allowed to just take RedHat's word for it that they cover the CVEs...

And so many CVEs are "won't fix" and that drives the security team to great anger despite RedHat making pretty reasonable calls in every single one of these I've ever had to investigate...

Think the root is that folks see GenAI as their ticket to unskilled participation in a very highly paid industry.

However things go, that will not be the outcome, and I at least look forward to people being disinterested when it doesn't work that way (either they don't get to participate, or the industry won't be a high pay one anymore).

Problem is that ultimately, the CVEs tend to lose meaning. The relative risk of a CVE becomes impossibly diluted because most of them aren't of practical security consequence. It's a lot of work to keep up the charade that CVEs are something that need to be handled as "more than bugs" and that you can somehow get a better consistent experience by avoiding bugfixes but still get CVEs to maintain security..

Very critical things have CVEs that are really important, but the CVE facet of it does not really set off alarm bells since they've been overused. We instead create "brands" for the "actually important" vulnerabilities.

Maybe a good tool for entities like linux distributions to start their advisories, but it's a complete disaster for end-users to think they should be managing CVEs directly, which is precisely what the security community frequently demands. Also precisely why this is vaguely controversial.

Evidently they do at least have a rationale for that.

Instead of LIDAR in every car, they push LIDAR maps that they maintain by regularly driving the supported roads.

Of course, a LIDAR unit in the car would bring it back to a one-time purchase making sense, but initially that was too expensive, and now... well... they like the recurring revenue....

GM has a 'fix' for that:
https://news.dealershipguy.com...

Why make infotainment systems better, when you can just make phone integration worse?

I can't speak to it as I don't have a GM car, but do note they removed Android Auto and Apple Carplay from many of their vehicles, precisely to drive people to buy OnStar to have the big driving friendly displays be able to do the things many folks just started using their phone for when CarPlay/Android auto became a thing.

This is why they removed Android Auto and Apple Carplay from their vehicles. They are betting people are so loyal to GM that they'll pay for OnStar instead of just using their phone apps on the big screens like everyone else does.

Emboldened by the fact that Tesla similarly dismisses that feature and people bought Tesla's just fine.

Seems to be working based on the numbers, and the fact that someone at work who is a supreme fan of GM who has always just bought GM is disappointed that his next car won't work with his phone the way he likes, but doesn't see giving any other vendor a shot as a viable option. They do have some folks with crazy blind brand loyalty.

Most maddening for open source projects is the number of false positives exacerbated by multiple people trying to 'help' by running effectively the same security audit as a bunch of other people have done and trying to open issues that are duplicate...

Huge pain in the ass dealing with contributions from people who don't understand enough to analyze their LLMs "findings" and just pass them through "in case they are helpful".

Might be nice once the fad of "everyone contribute by running duplicate reviews" subsides though.

Note that this isn't even new to AI, the kernel has always been a flood of CVEs. The AI spotlight puts a bigger spotlight on it, but it has been a mess.

The real problem is that the average security team is mismanaged and forced to use terrible tools that report on yet fail to reconcile the status of the CVEs on behalf of the user and instead drives the team to have to figure out how to take care of it themselves.

Some twisted security mindset of going direct with CVEs as 'the most thorough vendor neutral approach' without instead leveraging distribution security advisories. So you end up with a security tool claiming you have thousands of security issues on an up-to-the-minute patched instance of the latest enterprise linux distribution because they backport and tools don't understand the version numbers.

In the industry, so many security teams mandating CVE management software that is absolutely stupid and pushes off all the hard bits to the user.

It sees 6.12.0-211.34.1.el10_2... Well... none of that makes sense so it just assumes that it's just plain 6.12.0 and demands the user reconcile the reality. Now the security vendor *could* maybe integrate with the major linux distributions advisories... But no, more CVEs is better, when you demo that your product finds hundreds of CVEs, that just proves it is being thorough as far as upper management is concerned.

They offer up sound guidance here, skip direct CVE management and lean on your distributor. If you are doing CVEs direct, at *least* use the patched files to cross-reference against your build to see if it even in theory could matter. However the problem is the business of the security industry doesn't prioritize those, and so we have stupid tools inflicted on people, and pushing back against those tools carries a stink of "must not care about security then".

Depends on the number of realistically 'false positives'.

I've known a few people who find the kernel CVEs particularly unreasonable as they tend to aggressively assume security implications. If they grant a CVE to a 'mere bug', no one is going to get too grumpy over that specific item. If someone believes they have a vulnerability and do not see a CVE, then people get riled up. So some feel the kernel is just granting CVEs to avoid pushing back.

The other headache is the monolithic nature of the project. "Linux" covers just everything. A potential security issue in a device never seen outside of PA-RISC systems 20 years ago? It's a "Linux" issue, so every x86 system will be flagged as 'affected' by security software that cannot deal with nuance

Of course, we are here mainly because the kernel team largely recognizes the practice of trying to apply only security updates while avoiding 'only bug' fixes as pretty insane. So err on the side of caution make CVEs extra unmanageable because realistically it was a pretty crappy strategy for such a complex project anyway.

Broadly speaking, CVEs are usually pretty bogus, but a small percentage are very real and critical issues. You can't use the 'score' to really measure this either, it's not very good in the first place, and for example I saw the exact same issue in a C library and a python binding for that C library, and for whatever reason they graded the C library as 'minor' and python binding for that library 'critical', despite the python binding being nothing but a ctypes wrapper around the c library...

You expect very slop happy software developers to create effective safeguards?

Nothing you said precludes a bubble pop and investment problem, even if taken at face value. The fact that you are getting rate limited doesn't mean there isn't a bubble. That doesn't speak to the economics, how the demand is distributed, and whether or not that demand is durable as hype levels out.

As the post said, there may be "right" AI companies but there are certainly "wrong" AI companies and investors don't really know which is which and trillions of dollars are at stake with what will turn out to be the wrong companies. Some of the "wrong" AI companies are just stuff on top of the same provider you are using, so you are rate limited because they are also selling to less robust companies and when that less robust company goes poof, your rate limiting concerns may go away. Or your org is one of the less robust companies.

In the year 2000, plenty of folks got real strong value of the internet. But the bubble still popped and the markets dropped 40%. Hosting providers that were hugely constrained by the overwhelming demand at the time suddenly had capacity to spare. People continued to get value from the internet, but that was of little solace to folks whose livelihood was tied to one of the "wrong" internet companies of the day.

For some, *maybe*, but keep in mind:

I have met a fair number of folks making $200k+ who were supremely underwhelming. They would have a very narrow wheelhouse and *only* do things within that, single language, single framework, stuff like that. Even then, you ask them to do something that they can't find an example of online already and they would be lost. We had a scenario where work hired a few of these folks to replace the front-end work that our 'full stack' team had been doing, because we had more money and we should develop it 'properly'. They started from scratch, had a fairly basic tutorial-fodder front end and customers complained about loss of features and the front-end team rejected as "impossible with new framework, so won't be done". Meaning they couldn't find anyone who did that on stack overflow, and the old UI wasn't written with Angular so they decided it was not applicable. AI may well supersede such folks fine.

For a fair number of these companies, if the realization comes that AI couldn't replace the personnel they thought it could, then the bubble is likely popping and taking some of these companies with it. If not completely, having to scale back offerings. AI isn't going away, so the people in the above example can't celebrate too much, but the realization that it won't replace the entirety of white-collar work will be crushing financially.

Even assuming they can and want the talent back, they may see their position as strong with all those other unemployed/underemployed developers out there, so they may not relent to an exorbitant consultant rate. It *can* work and work long term if things line up right. For example they begrudgingly get gouged on what they think is short term then realize they can't just bandaid it and let the consultant go. But it's far from guaranteed.

Sure, if someone is in their fifties and has spent their career at $200k+, then your perspective carries weight, one might reasonably expect such a person to be able to retire or at least not sweat a big drop in pay. "Silicon Valley" standard of living may screw the numbers up (I explicitly declined an offer because I checked the real estate market and realized just how deep a cut I'd take in standard of living despite the "raise")

However, if someone graduated with their CompSci degree in 2022, well, all they built is probably a lot of student debt with nothing to show for it.

Note that companies find recent hires the "safest" to fire because they likely haven't become important in ways management doesn't understand.