$5000 is a joke. They pay millions to their top devs and still have more holes than a colander so a nice guy shows you a huge opening in your platform and all you can give him is a pat on the shoulder? Did you fire your top devs and hire that guy for a million bucks plus options? Did you sue the security firm you paid millions to audit the issues?
I really hope they get hacked and crash down burning in flames like the Hindenburg
I find Sam Altman recent comments very "low" as well, neither matters. So in that case I think bounty hunters should just cold shoulder idiocracy and sell these to the underground. Let their customers be abused and complain about how OAI isn't protecting them. Each one of these types of events could cost them thousands of dollars in lost revenue and/or internal support.
That’s so low. That’s the level of bounty I awarded researchers when I was managing the bug bounty program at a small startup, it’s just ridiculous coming from a large company like OpenAI
Not worth the effort for a company supposedly worth a trillion dollars. The problem is oai can't afford all of its mistakes at the usual rate and they make bad press. A 100k bug could make a headline, but 5k for the same bug requires the average person to be educated enough to understand how bad these issues are.
The "take over any instagram/meta account through their AI password reset chatbot" was going around and sold on shady forums for ~1 month before being patched.
Very few people would even have the knowledge of who, how, or where to "sell" such vulnerabilities. Going through a public bounty program is pretty much always preferable.
Now what about those millions of lines of code? Wasn’t the agent swarm supposed to take care of it?
All jokes aside this is exactly what happens as you build larger monoliths, system complexity and bug surface increases logarithmically… so in all seriousness you want to reduce LOC as much as possible. Maybe this can teach OpenAI a lesson to produce software that’s correct and adhere to established engineering standards over sensationalised “we built so much code” promotional material.
Much easier to reason and make decisions if the bar is "yeah it exists, but is it effective relative to its intended purpose?" This weeds out buggy code as well as under performant code. If it's not effective (broken, too slow, etc), it either needs a refactor or thrown on the scrap pile.
I’m sure exponential is what parent meant, but geometric is what actually happens, not exponential. Code complexity increases linearly when it doesn’t interact with other features, and geometrically when it does. In the worst case, complexity increases as the square of lines of code. That is still very, very bad, but it’s not exponential.
i don't think LoC is the metric. sometimes fewer lines of code results in a larger attack surface through type coercion / widening, poor abstractions, hiding or stuffing behavior (modules that do everything), etc. to me, making code easy to understand, test, fuzz, and verify is more important. sometimes that requires more lines of code.
LoC *IS* the metric. It is obviously not perfect tho but still the best one to compare software surface. Including to compare the same solution in different languages and platforms. The less code you need to manage, the less code you need to change and the less code you need to hold in your head to understand it (or in the LLM context nowadays).
If they or their company use email "security" software that "scans" all links it's not necessarily the users fault / they don't in fact click. The mail is auto-confirmed the second it hits the inbox.
We've had to change our registration confirmation mails too recently to not confirm on GET only, but with another form - in hindsight it was stupid before but many services do that.
> We've had to change our registration confirmation mails too recently to not confirm on GET only, but with another form - in hindsight it was stupid before but many services do that.
Security software fetching links will not trigger this behavior. It needs to be done in the context of the actual ChatGPT user so that a JavaScript payload can run.
If merely GET on the link was sufficient to trigger the behaviors, the adversary generating the link would just GET it themselves.
I've worked at a company that did link mangling on everything except simulated phishing emails. The effect was that people were trained to trust the mangled links.
Oof. Together with the fact that it's possible to remotely access the file system (!) of computers ever having started a "Work" chat in the ChatGPT desktop app [1], this seems pretty bad.
> I'm trying not to have any important data to even lose
This is the way. Respect user privacy and keep as little data as possible, and not only do you become a less attractive target, if you are targeted the outcome won’t be so bad.
only $5000 for this, lmao. It should be $50k out of pure shame. If they don't make these things hurt just a little they're never going to take following best practices seriously enough. There will be 9 more anyways.
Meanwhile the actual user of the account probably has to sign in using a yubikey because they get "CyBeRsEcRuItY aLeRtS" when they try to update node in their project to fix a crash and have to switch to daybreak blue to continue (or attempt to trick the normal models into doing it and risk getting autobanned)
Another classic OAuth implementation failure. Mismanaging the state parameter or leaking tokens via referer headers in redirects is Security 101. Wild to see this in a production environment of this scale.
The post seems to be talking about a html injection via a postMessage call where the receiver didn’t check who sent the message, which is a well known vulnerability entry point. Did I miss where OAuth had anything to do with this??
why didnt the black box of bullshit company detect this? for a group that touts every inane 'discovery' with hyperbolic bullshit, they really fall short on delivering anything of actual value, just rehashed bullshit.
I really hope they get hacked and crash down burning in flames like the Hindenburg
It requires the user to click a link. But I still find this bounty very low. Others may not report them if such a small bounty is given.
> server-side vulnerabilities are worth very little, because they quickly get patched.
Most people don't want to be felons.
Much easier to reason and make decisions if the bar is "yeah it exists, but is it effective relative to its intended purpose?" This weeds out buggy code as well as under performant code. If it's not effective (broken, too slow, etc), it either needs a refactor or thrown on the scrap pile.
99.9% of shops need a monolith with same monolith having entry points for background workers and crons.
Seasoned developers are unimpressed, or even disgusted, by the same massive piles of code.
dont click links people
that'll be $500k for the security training pls
We've had to change our registration confirmation mails too recently to not confirm on GET only, but with another form - in hindsight it was stupid before but many services do that.
This has been a thing since forever lol
If merely GET on the link was sufficient to trigger the behaviors, the adversary generating the link would just GET it themselves.
[0]: https://che01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A...
- "sign in via one-time code."
- "Click here to see our latest update".
250k refresher fee
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50078284
Pure html by hand, using vim. No frameworks, no nothing, single stylesheet. I think there are a few others around here that still do this.
[1] https://armincat.com/
I like the chain of regular old school things used to achieve it like post message, JSONP, iframe, Img tags.
I'm trying not to have any important data to even lose, when I eventually get hacked.
We can all turn up our noses, like the other commenters in this thread, but every one of them is exposed. Negligence is a matter of degrees.
This is the way. Respect user privacy and keep as little data as possible, and not only do you become a less attractive target, if you are targeted the outcome won’t be so bad.
Please don't drain my $6.5 billion in Dogecoin.
Meanwhile the actual user of the account probably has to sign in using a yubikey because they get "CyBeRsEcRuItY aLeRtS" when they try to update node in their project to fix a crash and have to switch to daybreak blue to continue (or attempt to trick the normal models into doing it and risk getting autobanned)