←back to thread

210 points lapnect | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
Der_Einzige ◴[] No.42165134[source]
Okay, big DS9 fan happy to see the name and all - but this tool seems really unnecessary.

LLM Security is hilariously "here be dragons" levels of poorly understood. The fact that this tool doesn't even touch any of the really juicy types of attacks, i.e. attacks relying on structured/controlled generation, or attention/representation/adapter engineering, or exposing/manipulating logprobs, implies that using this is not a lot more than security theater.

Also, where the hell are the old school computer security/antivirus companies in the LLM security space? I expected Avast, Kaspersky, Norton, etc to jump on this stuff since they've been talking about ML based heuristic detection for years now. Why are they all asleep at the wheel?

replies(4): >>42165206 #>>42165361 #>>42165681 #>>42171133 #
cess11 ◴[] No.42165681[source]
Avast, Kaspersky and so on sell trojans that compete against other, free, as in gratis, trojans in userspace. They have next to no interest in security as such beyond that scope.
replies(1): >>42166017 #
thrw42A8N ◴[] No.42166017[source]
Can you show data about Avast being comparable to a trojan?

Disclosure, worked there 15 years ago.

replies(2): >>42167117 #>>42171202 #
cess11 ◴[] No.42167117[source]
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/22/24080135/avast-security-p...

I think you can find more stuff like this through your own digging.

replies(1): >>42167402 #
thrw42A8N ◴[] No.42167402[source]
Not what I'd consider a trojan, but I agree that it's bad - so alright, point taken.

(In my dictionary, trojan allows remote control. Maybe I'm just old.)

replies(4): >>42169742 #>>42170175 #>>42170634 #>>42171220 #
1. Hedepig ◴[] No.42170634[source]
I read the original comment as hyperbole. But can see why it was confusing.

Edit: that came out way more condescending than I intentended