eyalitki

You literally just said your company released an exploit demo before disclosing some of these vulnerabilities to the vendor.

As for your suggestion, I was an infosec researcher, I worked for 3 years with vendors to help them patch before I can even tweet anything about my research. I even flew to their HQ to assist in patching when needed. After Covid I transitioned to a development role, and now I'm on the other end, handling security reports from researchers.

Based on this dual point of view, let me tell you that for a security engineer in Apple that will learn from your video about vuln your company did not even disclose yet, this karma harvesting is as far from "coordinated disclosure" as possible. Their managers will be fuming, and the stress they will be in given the media frenzy will be off the charts.

What is the value of revealing anything at this time point, when no patch is out? What use is it for the public?

Just last Black hat there was a "glimpse disclosure" that was later followed with proper fixes and details. I gave my AI agent the details that were supposed to be "useless", before the patch was out, and it found the vulnerability in less than an hour.

We shouldn't even enter this game. And with the track record of this specific group, I didn't exactly get the impression that their incentive is to help fix things, but rather to promote their brand while others be damned.

Aside from bragging how cool they are, what value is there for demonstrating a yet-to-be-patched vulnerability? I don't understand why old-guard infosec stars from Calif can do as they want, responsible disclosure be damned.

Just as a reminder for some folks here: During their WeWorm research in July–September 2026, Calif didn't stop at proving RCE to Tencent—they spent an extra week using AI to build a fully functional, self-propagating zero-click worm across three live phones, triggering temporary account bans from Tencent during testing.

I gave the model my usual question of "I got a raise from X to Y, please explain what is the impact on my net salary". Answer was detailed and nailed all payroll edge cases, only to miserably fail in basic math at the end. It tried to calculate 430 minus 60 and got 410.

It didn't compress the data. It understood it is an artificial sound file, reverse engineered it, and then encoded the source if it instead of compressing the output

Comparison was done in the scope of coderabbit AI code review tool, which sadly makes it practically irrelevant.

My personal experience as a software engineer, and a former security researcher who did manual code audit, is that this code review tool has such poor results that it isn't worth the "noise" and friction it causes developers during C/I code review

OpenAI has released the specifications of the Multipath Reliable Connection (MRC) protocol, and they are now publicly available as part of Open Compute Project (OCP) foundation.

MRC, which is already being used by OAI in production for training their models, aims to provide robust network utilization, allowing improved bandwidth while also efficiently handling network failures automatically at routing level.

The presented LPE vulnerability was gradually introduced to the Linux Kernel through refactors and optimizations, each commit making sense on its own. The vulnerability itself was exploitable since 2017 (!) and also doubles as a container escape.

The employer doesn't "allow" them to take "time off" to fight as part of the IDF as reservists. This is the law in Israel, and has nothing to do with any employer whatsoever. During this time, Israel's National Insurance is reimbursing the employer for the salary of absent employees.

OK, now I understood the gap. There is a technical limitation for relocation resolution when the relocation is against a different section. This means that for function sections we de-facto have no relocation finalization, only conversion of symbols from "global" to "local".

Hence, for a "file-sections" flag, we would only resolve relocations within a given file, but will leave intact relocations that cross the file boundary. Accordingly, this means that "function-sections" is identical to generating a static bundle object per original object file, and bundling them all together inside a .a archive.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't "file-sections" be identical to generating a static bundle object per original object file, and wrapping them all inside a .a archive?