Arbortheus an hour ago

I hope some of these backdoors and/or 0-days being kept under wraps by nation states or corporate espionage companies (Pegasus et al) are being found incidentally through all this.

It’s frustrating to have all these 0days and CVEs to patch for now, but in the long run perhaps we’ll leave with more robust software.

syshyk an hour ago

Hopefully we'll also see us back to KISS principles too. But who am I kidding

bunderbunder 10 minutes ago

Could the global economy survive what that would do to the B2B SaaS industry?

throw938990 8 minutes ago

Plain http 1.0 is KISS. Does not really work that well.

octoberfranklin 37 minutes ago

This is the real reason for the vulnpocalypse, not "technical debt".

NSA spent 20 years stockpiling vulns and pushing the industry towards half-assed solutions like address sanitization and pointer tagging when they could have put the industry on memory-safe languages instead.

They managed to get the IME/PSP/TrustZone into 99% of the CPUs out there by mandating it for government purchases; they could have done the same thing with memory-safe languages. But instead they chose to stockpile vulns. Hope they burn in hell for this.

FartyMcFarter 32 minutes ago

Why do you think the NSA could have put the industry on memory-safe languages?

Even if they wanted to, I highly doubt they could push the industry to do that. The industry does what it wants to do, and rewriting tons of software was far from its priorities. There were no LLMs back then to help with such a massive migration.

There's also the fact that rewriting software tends to introduce a lot of new bugs.

lambdaone 22 minutes ago

The U.S. government could have required all new software for any government-procured system to be written memory-safe languages, thus making it ubiquitous. This could have been phased in slowly with a few years of on-ramp time to allow for industry to acquire the relevant skills.

terminalcommand 18 minutes ago

But even in memory-safe languages, compiler bugs are still an issue. The theory is perfect but the implementation is flawed. In such case once the compiler bugs are found, the software would have to be rewritten to compile. For example an 11 year old memory bug was discovered recently in the rust compiler: https://www.penligent.ai/hackinglabs/rust-borrow-checker-bug....

Memory safe languages are not a silver bullet either.

GTP 5 minutes ago

Definitely not a silver bullet (consider also that memory management isn'the only source for vulns), but still much better than C/C++.

bluGill 14 minutes ago

The U.S. government had pushed Ada for years and it never worked out. The government was forced to accept C++ because industry was rebelling against ADA, even though ADA was memory safe. Well, Ada did have the ability to be memory unsafe. It was much better by default.

elcritch 11 minutes ago

The DoD tried that with Ada and largely failed. That was with defense contractors whose primary customer mandated it. That was despite Ada being proven to work in its first projects.

aa-jv 15 minutes ago

>IME/PSP/TrustZone into 99% of the CPUs

Yeah, about that. Its the biggest vulnerability in the industry. Nobody wants to confront this fact, though.

Too much profit to be made in subversion and human rights abuses.

swatcoder 20 minutes ago

Is it forcing us to "pay off" technical debt or is it starting us on a compulsory endless treadmill of feature-neutral fix-work? Collectively, we just won't know for a while.

It totally feels like the former if you watch it find and fix vulnerabilities or other debt-tasks one after another.

But only so many of these "technical debt" issue are little off-by-one errors that get remedied by a surgically narrow patch.

Many enough require some kind of restructuring or redevelopment of their own and it's going to take time to figure out if AI faces the same dilemma as human developers: where each non-trivial change carries the risk of some new issue, ad infinitum.

If that happens to be the case, and AI isn't able to magically produce perfect software in finite time, then what's really happened is that the threat of hostile AI exploiting our technical debt will force us to always be burning and churning code just to remain a moving target.

It's another "we'll see" thing for now, I think.

intrasight 13 minutes ago

The original technical debt, which cannot be paid off, was the decision to use a Von Neumann architectures instead of a Harvard architectures for CPUs.

victorbjorklund 6 minutes ago

Explain? (Genuine question because I wanna know)

xbmcuser 13 minutes ago

I was down voted a lot months ago for saying that a lot of open source software had a false sense of being secure with the assumption that someone else would have audited the code. And this AI auditing is going to make the promise of open source software getting audited by others actually real. Nice to see others waking up to this reality.

getfacl an hour ago

Having worked on both sides of the table, the reality is that it is far too easy to game certs like ISO27001. The risk calculation by companies taking that route is changing right out from under them thanks to Ai tools.

vanschelven 36 minutes ago

The article takes PHP2Shell as the worst offender of the present wave of vulnerabilities but HTTP2Shell/Brotli2Shell was arguably worse. The consequence over at Brotli may very well be the same, but the timeline shows, if anything, that at least part of reality is actually still very much "humans just sitting on vulnerabilities for months or even years". From the timeline: 8 years in the code, 8 months unreleased (but fix in Git) and at least 4 independent researchers finding the problem and pointing it out.

[0] https://www.bugsink.com/blog/http2shell-timeline/

herval 27 minutes ago

ironically, AI is also making us create a new whole new level of technical debt - where _no one_ has actual understanding of the code being written and we're just trusting the machine

bemtevi 26 minutes ago

Indeed, and it's just going to end up as a zero-sum game where the winner is the one who can most adeptly manipulate the machine to cause harm to the other.

Izmaki 11 minutes ago

This is exactly what has happened the past 50+ years, too, your toolbox was just different in the 90's than it is today.

Izmaki 14 minutes ago

I like to think of it as a new abstraction layer on top of something we've been comfortable with for years. The developers of the past had to trust that human-readable code would compile to the machine-level bytecode they were used to write, and that even though it wasn't as efficient as they could make it, one day the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Today most developers don't understand compilers well enough to even begin questioning if the code doesn't work because the compiler has a bug or because their code has a bug. They have to trust the abstraction layer beneath their current domain, and they have to find ways to prove that their work is correct in that domain (e.g., writing a sufficient number of unit- and integration tests, compiling with different compilers to different targets, etc.).

We, too, have to adjust to this change, this new abstraction layer, because whether we like it or not, the code an LLM will produce in no more than five years will arguably be much, much better than the code any 10x developer could produce even if given months of time and an infinite supply of caffeine.

We "just" need to find a way to confirm that our work in this new abstraction layer - primarily prompt engineering - results in the code functionality that we had in mind, not necessarily the code implementation that we had in mind.

contravariant 9 minutes ago

I'm still unsure if we won't figure out that the right abstraction level to describe what code means is, well, code.

Lucasoato 42 minutes ago

We could rephrase it like this: “AI has removed all the excuses we had not to remove technical debt”

Yes, AI developed code might have vulnerabilities or bugs, but so already has your JSP based web server that has Oracle and God knows what else among dependencies.

simias 31 minutes ago

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

sevenzero 24 minutes ago

>to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet

It's totally the devs fault and not the environments devs have to work in. Deadlines forced down on you until you have to make compromises, 24/7 having to compete with people who actually don't care because you have to meet months end payments somehow. Whole businesses blinded by a tech gold rush.

>We're a clown industry.

I do agree here, but that includes every non dev person.

bonoboTP 16 minutes ago

The people who set the deadlines are trying to stay competitive so there are contracts with clients so your salary can come from somewhere.

jimnotgym 8 minutes ago

Time for me to drag this old chestnut back up.

You don't see the same problems in say, structural engineering as you do in software engineering. I suggest this is due to needing to go through the formal training required of a structural engineer, and membership bodies like chartered institutions, with standards and codes of ethics. We might want to reflect on that

NostraDavid 22 minutes ago

> We're a clown industry.

I'll generally agree, and I include myself in this industry, but we've simply have been bound by compatibility. I don't think anyone chose intentionally to keep the crap around; it was simply never worth it to pay the "break compatibility" cost, until now.

traceroute66 21 minutes ago

> PHP was a joke language from the start.... Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now".

First, I am not a PHP fan, but I will absolutely stick up for the "its good now".

Yes, absolutely no debate the old PHP 4.x/5.x was shocking. However to give PHP their due, they absolutely did make serious efforts in 7.x/8.x. They deserve due recognition for that.

Unfortunately lots of people – I'm guessing you're one of them – still have battle-scars from 4.x/5.x and they think (incorrectly) that 7.x/8.x is "more of the same".

Second "joke language", well, cast your mind back to what else was available at the time... ColdFusion, CGI, ASPX ... it was not exactly a beautiful world back then.

Sure, to borrow your terminology, the Java fans will be along soon to tell us all how awesome Java is for the web. But many of us still bear battle-scars of the horrors of Java stacktraces, messing around with incomprehensible XML config files, Java's penchant for eating RAM for breakfast, and generally trying to figure out why the hell Tomcat is not working (again !).

hansvm 19 minutes ago

Wait a second, in very recent years the major Java projects I touched were still messing around with incomprehensible XML config files. Has that actually changed in some part of the industry?

traceroute66 16 minutes ago

> Has that actually changed in some part of the industry?

I suspect the only thing that's changed is that Oracle now charge you for the pleasure. ;)

More seriously though, its been a long time since I've touched Java, but I suspect the only thing that's changed is that its all hidden in magical kubernetes containers these days.

DocTomoe 14 minutes ago

I remember when that exact line of argument was made about '3/4 was silly, but they're putting a real effort into 5'

hansvm 21 minutes ago

> HTTP, naughty bits

It's especially fun when not implementing the naughty bits is its own source of vulns. Your code is simpler and less prone to RCE, but your proxy mishandling or whatever allows for credential smuggling attacks, identity spoofing, request smuggling, cache poisoning, and all the normal issues at the application layer.

eastbound 20 minutes ago

You forgot NPM. Whereby we download code from unknown authors on GitHub and run in with full access to our filesystem on our machines. No vulnerability, it's been designed like this, we even have designed scripts to autoupdate vulnerabilites, that's the proof that vulns are not common.

lambdaone 20 minutes ago

> we're not serious people

Absolutely. The industry could have moved towards safer languages, better coding methodology and formal verification years ago (see for example MISRA C as at least a partial movement in this direction). It didn't, because it was cheaper not to.

bonoboTP 17 minutes ago

It's coordination problems and large scale distributed action, not some moral character of how serious the people are. Effort is not fungible. To make php good, you only have to act at one point, in a localized way, at the php foundation. To ditch php, you have to act in a coordinated way across any resource strapped companies and individuals. Just see how hard it was to ditch Python 2 or how ipv4 is still not ditched.

Trying to understand underlying reasons and incentive structures is much more productive and useful than simply venting about the worse moral character and seriousness of people in one industry vs the next. Curiously, the grass seems always greener - when you ask people in other industries, you'll often hear endless complaints about the state of things there too.

stuaxo 40 minutes ago

It's also introducing a new kind of technical debt much faster.

JsonDemWitOster 29 minutes ago

I think I doubled the amount of tempermanent fixes I pushed in my whole career just in the past two weeks.

poelzi 38 minutes ago

In my opinion, the whole paradigm how we use computers needs to be replaced. It is like the 80s, but now with internet and a thread larger then anything in computer history before. I remember boot sector viruses and stuff.

My approach is https://tix.im/ - not launched yet. But from expedience: modeling everything as workflows of composeable nix flakes (expert systems from programs, skills, agents, workflows and their snippets, DBs blobs, service descriptions, ...) and then run everything in highly isolated environments. It is not only so much more efficient, reduces errors, increases quality, reduces unnecessary cognitive load, ...

I start to move more and more daily tasks into the systems. Even UI programs become interactive workflow steps, which allow me to attach from anywhere back to a task in an environment optimized for the task.

Dependency updates for example, a workflow. A subgraph from a security scanner expert checks each change in the dependency tree.

sevenzero 32 minutes ago

>In my opinion, the whole paradigm how we use computers needs to be replaced.

>But from expedience: modeling everything as workflows

No thanks. I like private computing. I like all the fun stuff you can do with Computers. I'll never want agent based computers.

hatefulmoron 13 minutes ago

I don't mean to be that guy, but your website feels inscrutable to me. I know that a lot of that might be because it's written by an LLM, but the page seems like it's full of private language and is the product of a deep context conversation with your agent that I don't have enough context to understand.

m000 16 minutes ago

And that's the biggest win with AI. With old-fashioned development, it was considered acceptable to defer addressing valid feedback ad infinitum, hiding behind whatever lousy excuse you could come up with. No more.

jareklupinski an hour ago

personally have started going the other way: AI-assisted microkernels, and only the programming that is actually needed for the problem at hand

my webserver never needed a million lines of code just to pass bytes to other people

mawadev 25 minutes ago

I'm personally not sharing the connotations of negativity towards software development and the term technical debt. I keep reading implications that most of this has always been in some way preventable, but it really is not that simple. How did nobody find these types of exploits 40 years ago? Why are we suddenly shocked and blame the field for this? I think the majority of people severely underestimate the complexity and seriousness of software. Once that perception stops and the economic incentives are right, we can start to look closer.

Just consider how laughable some working conditions in software are and then come to realize how architecture is shaped by the organization communication patterns and not reality. You will see it in a different light then.

program_whiz 28 minutes ago

What's hillarious is people vibe coding massive AI apps thinking its not creating tech debt and security holes. If anything, AI is discovering existing holes, and creating them faster than ever before in history.

All those "paying down" technical debt with AI, I would advise reading the code _very_ carefully. Sometimes the "solution" which passes some test or adheres to some described functionality is incredibly narrow / brittle, and/or has failure cases that are non-obvious.

Yes I'm using $latest_model on high, its still not there. Unless your threshold for "fixed" is "the 1M line lean proof runs, we don't know how it works", it still requires a lot of attention, hand-holding, and scrutiny, especially when fixing issues / working around failures (where it tends to shortcut or invent workarounds).

Kevin_Flynn 43 minutes ago

Earlier this year, the cybersecurity firm Calif offered to independently audit PHP, sponsored by OpenAI. Within two weeks, a researcher at Calif, aided by AI tools, found a way to use the out-of-memory bug to run arbitrary code on the host server, allowing a malicious actor to install malware or read critical data. Now, it was no longer a minor bug—it was a critical vulnerability, and the Calif team alerted the PHP foundation to start working on a patch immediately.

So, the headline should read,

"AI is helping us eliminate 40 years of technical debt."

Since AI found the bug, and probably also generated the patch at this point.

An abundance of solutions is a problem for people who sell solutions.

eecc 20 minutes ago

I'm not going to lie, I'm having a great time thinking at the endless discussions around unsafe languages and the relentless smugness of many practitioners claiming everything was fine as long as the responsible and the skilled (them) were in charge; and let's not forget the formulaic "with great power comes great responsibility" closers.

Well now, Great Responsibles, it's clear you too were out of your collective depth and were all paying for your smug hubris. Perhaps take a bite out of that humble pie you've obviously never tasted?

jmyeet 4 minutes ago

I think we'll look back at this moment as peak C/C++ before they begin a long, slow decline into irrelevance.

I've been bullish on Rust for years because memory safety is simply too important and Rust can essentially prove an implementation correct and solve a certain class of very important bugs. It doesn't solve every problem and there is a complexity cost.

I've also said that writing multithreaded code is simply too complex. In an era of out-of-order execution, different levels of caching, asymmetric cores, hyperthreading (although this is largely dead now?), branch prediction and having to support multiple architectures it's simply too hard for most people to write correct multithreaded code. Period. If you find yourself as a non-library developer creating a mutex or spawning a thread, somebody has screwed up.

This is also why I think the single-threaded async/await model with post-request teardown of PHP is the correct choice for most people.

We're going to go through a dark period of a lot of 0days. As the article notes, this is paying 40 years of technical debt. It will result in a more secure ecosystem however. I believe this will ultimately also hamper black markets, governments and 3 letter agencies who trade in those 0days.

As painful as this all is, it will ultimately be a good thing, one of the few to come out of AI (IMHO).

stevefan1999 33 minutes ago

And you know how are those technical debts created in the first place? More than 40 years of negligence in IT infrastructure.

CyberDildonics 5 minutes ago

What does that mean exactly?

bearjaws 42 minutes ago

We've patched more bugs and more vulnerabilities in the last 3 months than entire years at my last job.

I fear it's only going to get worse.

EQYV 39 minutes ago

Worse?

IshKebab 38 minutes ago

Better you mean? Or are you saying you prefer having unfixed bugs?

amelius 41 minutes ago

I'm sure the NSA has an eye on the groups that are asking AI about security issues in various popular softwares ...

sva_ an hour ago

Better sooner than later, to be honest.

daveguy 30 minutes ago

That's a weird way to say creating 40 years of technical debt per year.

contravariant 7 minutes ago

The most pessimistic interpretation is that AI is superhumanly good at exposing technical debt and not that good at avoiding it.

We'd be replacing decades of technical debt with debt we'd have no hope of paying.

sevenzero an hour ago

While we're at it, I'd appreciate easy secure authentication of a device without having to pull in a third party authentication provider. Thanks.

malka1986 26 minutes ago

The real slop was the human slop we made along the way.

amelius 44 minutes ago

Yeah but AI also helps in lowering the debt ...