Incident CVE-2026-LGTM(nesbitt.io) |
Incident CVE-2026-LGTM(nesbitt.io) |
I enjoyed this bit a lot from the timeline
> Karen Oyelaran finds the payload by reading the source code with her eyes and files a second issue. The triage assistant closes it as “duplicate of #8814.” Issue #8814 is a feature request for dark mode. Karen reopens it. The assistant closes it. Karen reopens it. Karen’s GitHub account is rate-limited for “patterns consistent with automated behaviour.”
And this - the final sentence is a perfect indictment of the timeline we are in.
> Two AI review agents from competing vendors, both attached to a downstream pull request bumping foxhole-lz4, enter a disagreement loop over whether the package is malicious. After 340 comments and $41,255 in inference spend, Finance revokes both API keys; one vendor’s marketing team, cc’d on the cost anomaly alert, issues a press release citing “a 430% YoY increase in adversarial multi-agent security reasoning.” The stock opens up 6%.
I'm joining the goat farming waitlist ;-)
> We would like to thank:
>
> Karen Oyelaran, who found the issue on Day 1 and is currently appealing her GitHub rate limit via a web form that is also AI-triaged
> Kubernetes (the dog), who was not involved in this incident but whose photo in the #incident-response channel was auto-tagged by the Slack image classifier as “container orchestration diagram (confidence: 0.31)”
> This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen.
Now there's a metric that would make my boss nervous.
> Total inference spend across all parties during the incident window was $1.7M, which Marketing has asked us to start describing as “a record investment in autonomous customer assurance.”
This is too funny.
Some of them likely eat tomatoes, so for that electricity you need to (indirectly) supply a certain number of tomatoes.
Which is the part about "what will human labor be worth?" that gets missed in all the AI discussion: it's the only thing the economy ultimately values.
Yeah, this one got me laughing and seems like such a heavy Claudism. The number of times I'm reading Claude's response and throwing my hands in the air like, "What the fck does that have to do with anything!?" It's the worst part of the over eagerness.
Yes, I recognize the irony.
Gee whiz what an interesting way of thinking.
> one vendor’s marketing team, cc’d on the cost anomaly alert, issues a press release citing “a 430% YoY increase in adversarial multi-agent security reasoning.” The stock opens up 6%.
That happens! That is not satire. So i had to visit the comments here to be sure :)
(In all seriousness it seems this is the dream of a huge number of AI pilled execs dreaming of infinite velocity at a fraction of the cost... velocity pointed where, you ask? Well stop asking or you'll be next.)
I honestly can't tell with comments like this whether folks have too much respect for AI, or to little respect for people...
Side note: interesting to see how many folks commenting did not get it being satire (even the title has LGTM). I guess it's time to rethink how sharp the HN folks truly are compared to the average non-tech person (not that I had any big assumptions myself).
I'm curious about this recipe for chevre :D
(Also CVE-2026-LGTM would be an awesome name for a Culture ship)
And this is why management assumes that one can just automate software developers.
The incident was resolved when the attacker’s autonomous agent read a file it shouldn’t have, which is also how the incident started.(if you have to say it, that’s how you know it’s good)
This was hilarious. I didn't know that I needed AI slop satire in my life.
"This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout."
(also, CVEs are numeric only, so the "LGTM" (looks good to me) and CVE "YIKES" is also a big giveaway, on top of ~all of the text being outlandish)
Not the first thing, it’s buried in the tags as grey on light grey on white.
if you happened to miss the tags, reading approximately any of the article should make it pretty clear.
"This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout."