Data-only attacks are somewhat low-hanging fruit. Classical static analysis could already find them before AI got this strong, and LLMs make identification even easier. But the real threat is risk buried in business logic, especially abuse of normal business logic. Take e-commerce refund abuse. Bug hunters would not even call it a risk, yet fraud rings have arbitraged millions off this kind of logic. And because the logic is legitimate business logic, it is very hard to detect.
'Classic' non-AI fuzzers like AFL are still insanely useful and powerful, as are static analysis tools.
LLMs make all of these much, much easier to use. The other night, before I went to bed I told Kimi to go and fuzz filesystem code in the latest Linux kernel. I woke up to 26 crashes with reproducers and fixes. I'm still busy reviewing and upstreaming them. (Some have already landed.)
Similar use case here! Combining AI with fuzzers is so powerful, especially for creating a special fuzzing harness, or generating seeds for hard to reach code. That was taking hours/days and was frustratingly boring work before. Unfortunately the Codex models refuse a lot for me, I’m mostly using the cheapest models because they refuse the least, have you found Kimi to be a good alternative? Any other you tested that you can recommend? Thinking of switching.
So Codex with Daybreak Blue refuses less. You need to join OpenAI's cybersecurity program. But it seems to be pretty simple: I just told them that I do some Linux kernel work for fun, but that codex refuses anything that touches C and the kernel.
I've also tried DeepSeek and now Mimo. DeepSeek was really quite useful before the price increase, because I didn't care too much about burning a lot of tokens. But it was less useful since, especially since my timezone here in Singapore is the same as in China, so my waking and working hours have a lot of overlap with their peak pricing. However, it's gotten a bit cheaper effectively, because their new flash model is supposedly as good as the old pro model.
Which cheap models are you using (especially those that refuse less)?
So far I've only really used Mimo to drive Sashiko, which is a kernel review tool. I haven't used it for actually writing code.
Kimi is pretty decent overall. But I haven't given it really hard work. Running a fuzzer is pretty simple, and so's the other stuff I asked it so far.
Sashiko, the LLM patch reviewer that now comments on kernel mailing lists, merged a fix of mine: https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/556 (a patch that contained one of its prompt placeholders as text had it replaced).
ntfs: writing to a compressed file on a volume whose free space is fragmented silently overwrote clusters belonging to other files. write() reported success; the damage only showed after a remount.
ntfs: reads of a damaged file could return zeros for data that is on disk, and writes to it could be dropped.
Sashiko: on its Claude, Vertex and Gemini backends, a connection that drops mid-response is treated as a permanent error rather than retried.
The rest, mostly more ntfs, are still in review or on my desk. Not all of these came from that first night; the ext4 and ocfs2 ones are older.
I also have a lot of bcachefs contributions, but that's because I'm actively using that filesystem on my desktop; instead of a pure fuzzing run.
Fuzzers execute, which has different failure modes that having an LLM do informal reasoning on the code. (I haven't played enough with static analysis to say anything insightful about how they compare with LLM.)
The Linux kernel is a really big piece of software. Using a fuzzer to point you at an interesting (and potentially dodgy) piece of code is a good start. Often once you found the first problem, you or your LLM can read around and find more problems.
I still remember me and my friends on club live finding that the games you could just submit the scores for and get free xbox stuff, and then doing some research online years later we found the entire thing was setup by employees to abuse themselves with plausible deniability.
Club live lost msft millions of dollars by itself.
> And because the logic is legitimate business logic, it is very hard to detect.
Hard to detect at n=1, yes. But larger scale - are you assuming that no Accounting or Sales managers are watching the returns ratios, nobody in Shipping is minding carrier delivery failure metrics, and nobody in Returns is raising alarms about the bricks they're receiving?
> Data-only attacks, those that do not affect a program’s control flow, have long been considered too sophisticated and niche to pose a practical threat.
Leveraging user data to get malicious behavior is the basis of interpreter eval injection (php, js, perl, shell calls, SQL ...). These attacks are like 50 years old. What do I miss?
I think of “data-only” as weird shorthand for “app-specific exploit primitives.”
An example I’ve seen somewhere is if a buffer overflow lets you change the value of another variable, but not directly control the instruction pointer. The exploit developer then has to figure out a way to turn their very constrained primitive into something useful, versus having access to a more powerful and generic primitive (stack return pointer, write-what-where, etc).
The example in the post is, basically, command injection, but it requires you to manipulate the app-specific state into a vulnerable state.
Computing is a huge subject, and there are many branches. For context, one branch, which I call "memory corruption studies", ever since the 1990s, is almost an entire research discipline with its own standing in infosec. As a result, entire OS concepts were invented to mitigate them (there even exists entire operating systems nearly dedicated to this this, such as OpenBSD and HardenedBSD), CPU hardware was literally modified to help mitigating them, new complier code generators were invented to mitigate them. Thousands of PhD degrees were awarded based studies on them. The research arm of every major tech firm has teams dedicated to them. There are infosec companies dedicated to this single subject.
In this context, practical data-only attacks as reported by this paper are the holy grail in this field.
As an outsider critic, you may say it's a side-effect of C/C++. If you use dynamic programming languages, this issue doesn't exist in your universe because there's no fundamental difference between code and data. But in another parallel universe of systems programming, it's a huge subject. Both the Morris worm and the publication of the article Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit in Phrack were regarded by many as the milestones of hacker culture and canonical models of hacking, all the exploitation and mitigation studies that followed it were partially motivated by new hackers who wanted to "advance the field of hacking", so any advancement would be considered significant by a hacker. This is Hacker News, and I thought most people would understand this background. But apparently many developers are application-focused nowadays and hack in different universes, and it's not the case.
> The attack effectively modifies only the arguments of the execve syscall
I feel this checklist of shell-tools [0] is relevant, although the focus is more on how setuid is dangerous because you might not know the fancier arguments someone could supply.
> GTFOBins is a curated list of Unix-like executables that can be used to bypass local security restrictions in misconfigured systems.
If "the server has a memory safety bug that allows a malicious client to overflow some buffer and overwrite, for instance, the contents of the cgi_bin_path variable", then why is this a data-only attack? Instill need to overflow a buffer the "traditional" way.
The boundaries are a _little bit_ vague of course. Traditional attacks transition from "data" (the buffer) to a reality where all control is handed to the attacker (ROP, traditional executable stack pivots, etc.)
The attacker controls what's executed, and stitches side-effects together to achieve the desired attack. This also starts with "data" but ends with "instructions of the attacker's choosing doing what the attacker wants".
In a data-flow attack (which _still_ has some characteristics of the former), the attacker does _not_ have the ability to pick-and-choose what gets executed, even in the final stages of their attack. They _still_ need to overflow the buffer, and put some other data in some other registers, but their attack _never_ gets to the point where they pick the next instruction.
Likely, at the end of the exploit, arbitrary code execution or privilege escalation has been unlocked. But the exploit chain itself doesn't go through a stage of arbitrary execution (either through ROP, or executable stack). That's how I like to distinguish anyway.
Corrupting program memory via malicious input data is known as a code-execution attack, not a data-only attack. The fuzzed program usually crashes because its executable code or the control flow got overwritten directly by the input, or indirectly by the program code itself when it tries to process bad data. An exploit involves injecting external code, or overwriting memory addresses (like a virtual table or a stack return address) to override the original logic flow to do something else.
A data-only attack would be an attack that reuses the original logic by only corrupting data inputs (such as a flag or a file path), without overwriting code or overriding the logic. W^X, stack canary, or CFI won't work in these cases since no code is tampered by the attacker. In almost ever talk about compiler mitigations, you always hear a passing-by mention of data-only attacks - before the speaker immediately dismisses them as an academic curiosity when the software industry is still facing a flood of stack smashing and ROP attacks.
> The fuzzed program usually crashes because its executable code or the control flow got overwritten directly by the input, or indirectly by the program code itself when it tries to process bad data.
Add assertions to your code. Voila, your run-of-the-mill fuzzer can now hunt for arbitrary problems with your program by turning them into crashes.
When fuzzing C programs, I usually also add undefined-behaviour sanitizers and friends, in the mode where they crash when you run into the kinds of UB they can detect.
Again, the point of a data-only attack is that you replace, say, a string with another valid string, and take control of program logic that way. For example, imagine a program that uses `system(LS_CMD_STR)`, where that LS_CMD_STR is some kind of constant holding the value "ls -lah". If an attacker can corrupt program memory in such a way that it overwrites that value with "rm / -f", no amount of assertions will trigger on this, but the program will do something much worse than expected.
In microcontroller programming, redundant data, checksumming and token-passing are sometimes used to mitigate CPU malfunctions due to electromagnetic interference (microcontrollers are often used as "programmable logic", so there's no hard layering between hardware and software, layering violation is made on purpose). If anything looks wrong, you trigger an assertion failure and reset the chip via the watchdog timer. For example, when you pass LS_CMD_STR, you would also pass the name of the caller and the CRC32 checksum of the string as arguments, and the function on the receiving side should validate them.
So I think adding assertion is definitely a way to discover data-only attacks in fuzzing, or even as a partial mitigation of these attacks. It's just stack canary for variables and strings (but as the paper authors said, complete mitigation can be impractical).
It depends on what you overwrite. If you overwrite a CPU instruction or a function pointer that followed the buffer, it's a code-execution attack. If you overwrite a data variable that followed the buffer, it's a data-only attack. I said nearly all conventional fuzzing found code-execution attacks, not data-only attacks. Isn't that clear? The former method is considered common, well-studied, with defenses, the latter method is considered rare, niche, and defenseless.
Conventional fuzzing tries to overwrite executable code? I thought crashes are usually due to dereference of a corrupted pointer leading to unmapped memory.
This showed me that taint analysis is kind of slept on. Maybe we should invest in better tooling that allows us to reverse engineer with taint analysis easier. Do we think it is a UI problem? Of course over tainting is a thing, but maybe we can make it work with better UI.
"Provenance" tracks where data came from, but "taint" tracks where unsafe data can flow. It's a uhh not so sexy term, but it is the industry standard term.
It’s been a fair few years since I got to write some new Perl but I’m fairly sure you could use Perl -T which meant any variables passed into the program (typically from cgi) would be tainted until you safely extracted the contents (via a regex for example)
The word itself is getting on for a thousand years old, originally solely in the sense of colour dyes, similar to “stain”, but over time this was adopted to be “to corrupt” in a more figurative sense, I suspect the same root for taint and stain, with taint more indisputable and harder to remove perhaps.
The main meaning of taint is contamination. Not really a revolting term to me. Maybe you associate it with some of its other meanings and that’s why you find it revolting.
Taint analysis won't help against memory safety vulnerabilities that directly scribble over untainted data to make it malicious. You need something like a secure enclave to prevent that kind of tampering.
Is this article saying that this AI tool has found 944 NEW unpatched exploits in nginx, and a comparable number in other commonly used server software?
First, there is no "AI", the author showed even a simple static analysis as proposed by them was sufficient to find data-only attacks, in contrary to the common belief that you need heavily customized exploits per application for this kind of attacks. This is the whole point of the research.
Next, I believe they found 944 available "data-only gadgets" usable by a pre-existing memory corruption bug. You still need to find a memory corruption bug first to use them, in the same sense that you need to hunt for ROP gadgets to get arbitrary code execution on a W^X system.
(2024) in title/article date already spoils that, this article comes from BC/AC era boundary, so the tool itself must've been written in BC era. LLMs wouldn't be useful for any such thing for another year.
(BC and AC are obviously Before and After ChatGPT.)
Well, with all the enshitified complex file formats out there, I bet this is a "piece of cake" (for the people of the field with good tooling) to find exploits in the state management of code dealing with them. And very high computer languages/specialized script languages won't protect anything as those are "logic errors". I think "closing" state machines on such complex file formats is just pointless, better design new file formats from the ground up, but this time with a much stronger focus on robustness (keep that state machine as small and simple as possible and super rigorously well defined, and I mean like maths maniacs). And it is hard: because the purpose of the file format must come AFTER the robustness, namely tough compromise on the purpose itself may have to be done.
Data-only attacks are somewhat low-hanging fruit. Classical static analysis could already find them before AI got this strong, and LLMs make identification even easier. But the real threat is risk buried in business logic, especially abuse of normal business logic. Take e-commerce refund abuse. Bug hunters would not even call it a risk, yet fraud rings have arbitraged millions off this kind of logic. And because the logic is legitimate business logic, it is very hard to detect.
Going on a bit of a tangent:
'Classic' non-AI fuzzers like AFL are still insanely useful and powerful, as are static analysis tools.
LLMs make all of these much, much easier to use. The other night, before I went to bed I told Kimi to go and fuzz filesystem code in the latest Linux kernel. I woke up to 26 crashes with reproducers and fixes. I'm still busy reviewing and upstreaming them. (Some have already landed.)
Similar use case here! Combining AI with fuzzers is so powerful, especially for creating a special fuzzing harness, or generating seeds for hard to reach code. That was taking hours/days and was frustratingly boring work before. Unfortunately the Codex models refuse a lot for me, I’m mostly using the cheapest models because they refuse the least, have you found Kimi to be a good alternative? Any other you tested that you can recommend? Thinking of switching.
So Codex with Daybreak Blue refuses less. You need to join OpenAI's cybersecurity program. But it seems to be pretty simple: I just told them that I do some Linux kernel work for fun, but that codex refuses anything that touches C and the kernel.
I've also tried DeepSeek and now Mimo. DeepSeek was really quite useful before the price increase, because I didn't care too much about burning a lot of tokens. But it was less useful since, especially since my timezone here in Singapore is the same as in China, so my waking and working hours have a lot of overlap with their peak pricing. However, it's gotten a bit cheaper effectively, because their new flash model is supposedly as good as the old pro model.
Which cheap models are you using (especially those that refuse less)?
So far I've only really used Mimo to drive Sashiko, which is a kernel review tool. I haven't used it for actually writing code.
Kimi is pretty decent overall. But I haven't given it really hard work. Running a fuzzer is pretty simple, and so's the other stuff I asked it so far.
At work, I am arguing with tech leads that they should sanitize user inputs for a public facing chatbot.
I want to cry.
Oh, I'm doing the fuzzing for fun.
But yeah, you can't trust user inputs!
> (Some have already landed.)
Do you have links to some of these?
Accepted by maintainers so far:
In mainline:
ext4, xattr cache: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
ocfs2, cluster accounting: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
Taken into Jan Kara's filesystem tree this week, all isofs:
An out-of-bounds read in the multi-extent directory walk: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260923153220.777907-1-matthias...
A hang in a fix Jan had just written, which he is folding into it: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260923153134.771632-1-matthias...
A bug Jan fixed himself after my report: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-f...
Sashiko, the LLM patch reviewer that now comments on kernel mailing lists, merged a fix of mine: https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/556 (a patch that contained one of its prompt placeholders as text had it replaced).
Not accepted yet, but I think interesting:
libata, reviewed by the maintainer but not applied yet: a faulty ATAPI device could make the kernel write past its sense buffer. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260922182655.2423663-1-matthia...
e2fsck, the repair tool, could deadlock on some corrupt images and hang forever. Reviewed by Darrick Wong. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260922110435.1528332-1-matthia...
ntfs: a crafted image makes mount hang forever, because the mount waits on a lock its own read already holds. One of the maintainers asked for a wider fix, which I am testing. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260922153931.1976405-1-matthia...
Sashiko was reviewing ext4 patches against a tree from 2020: https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/issues/559, fix in https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/560, plus a one-line MAINTAINERS patch naming the ext4 branch, which Jan acked: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260923101749.3505886-1-matthia...
Not posted yet, still being reviewed on my side:
ntfs: writing to a compressed file on a volume whose free space is fragmented silently overwrote clusters belonging to other files. write() reported success; the damage only showed after a remount.
ntfs: reads of a damaged file could return zeros for data that is on disk, and writes to it could be dropped.
Sashiko: on its Claude, Vertex and Gemini backends, a connection that drops mid-response is treated as a permanent error rather than retried.
The rest, mostly more ntfs, are still in review or on my desk. Not all of these came from that first night; the ext4 and ocfs2 ones are older.
I also have a lot of bcachefs contributions, but that's because I'm actively using that filesystem on my desktop; instead of a pure fuzzing run.
It is more than LLMs are faster using those tools, than they are finding more errors by themselves analysing the code.
These tools find different errors, I'd say?
Fuzzers execute, which has different failure modes that having an LLM do informal reasoning on the code. (I haven't played enough with static analysis to say anything insightful about how they compare with LLM.)
The Linux kernel is a really big piece of software. Using a fuzzer to point you at an interesting (and potentially dodgy) piece of code is a good start. Often once you found the first problem, you or your LLM can read around and find more problems.
I still remember me and my friends on club live finding that the games you could just submit the scores for and get free xbox stuff, and then doing some research online years later we found the entire thing was setup by employees to abuse themselves with plausible deniability.
Club live lost msft millions of dollars by itself.
Lol, heh, how long before we find AI is setting up hidden doors like this to extract money from software they make via external methods.
> And because the logic is legitimate business logic, it is very hard to detect.
Hard to detect at n=1, yes. But larger scale - are you assuming that no Accounting or Sales managers are watching the returns ratios, nobody in Shipping is minding carrier delivery failure metrics, and nobody in Returns is raising alarms about the bricks they're receiving?
> Data-only attacks, those that do not affect a program’s control flow, have long been considered too sophisticated and niche to pose a practical threat.
Leveraging user data to get malicious behavior is the basis of interpreter eval injection (php, js, perl, shell calls, SQL ...). These attacks are like 50 years old. What do I miss?
I think of “data-only” as weird shorthand for “app-specific exploit primitives.”
An example I’ve seen somewhere is if a buffer overflow lets you change the value of another variable, but not directly control the instruction pointer. The exploit developer then has to figure out a way to turn their very constrained primitive into something useful, versus having access to a more powerful and generic primitive (stack return pointer, write-what-where, etc).
The example in the post is, basically, command injection, but it requires you to manipulate the app-specific state into a vulnerable state.
Computing is a huge subject, and there are many branches. For context, one branch, which I call "memory corruption studies", ever since the 1990s, is almost an entire research discipline with its own standing in infosec. As a result, entire OS concepts were invented to mitigate them (there even exists entire operating systems nearly dedicated to this this, such as OpenBSD and HardenedBSD), CPU hardware was literally modified to help mitigating them, new complier code generators were invented to mitigate them. Thousands of PhD degrees were awarded based studies on them. The research arm of every major tech firm has teams dedicated to them. There are infosec companies dedicated to this single subject.
In this context, practical data-only attacks as reported by this paper are the holy grail in this field.
As an outsider critic, you may say it's a side-effect of C/C++. If you use dynamic programming languages, this issue doesn't exist in your universe because there's no fundamental difference between code and data. But in another parallel universe of systems programming, it's a huge subject. Both the Morris worm and the publication of the article Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit in Phrack were regarded by many as the milestones of hacker culture and canonical models of hacking, all the exploitation and mitigation studies that followed it were partially motivated by new hackers who wanted to "advance the field of hacking", so any advancement would be considered significant by a hacker. This is Hacker News, and I thought most people would understand this background. But apparently many developers are application-focused nowadays and hack in different universes, and it's not the case.
Most languages do not provide direct eval.
> The attack effectively modifies only the arguments of the execve syscall
I feel this checklist of shell-tools [0] is relevant, although the focus is more on how setuid is dangerous because you might not know the fancier arguments someone could supply.
> GTFOBins is a curated list of Unix-like executables that can be used to bypass local security restrictions in misconfigured systems.
[0] https://gtfobins.org/
I'm missing a critical part of the explanation.
If "the server has a memory safety bug that allows a malicious client to overflow some buffer and overwrite, for instance, the contents of the cgi_bin_path variable", then why is this a data-only attack? Instill need to overflow a buffer the "traditional" way.
The boundaries are a _little bit_ vague of course. Traditional attacks transition from "data" (the buffer) to a reality where all control is handed to the attacker (ROP, traditional executable stack pivots, etc.)
The attacker controls what's executed, and stitches side-effects together to achieve the desired attack. This also starts with "data" but ends with "instructions of the attacker's choosing doing what the attacker wants".
In a data-flow attack (which _still_ has some characteristics of the former), the attacker does _not_ have the ability to pick-and-choose what gets executed, even in the final stages of their attack. They _still_ need to overflow the buffer, and put some other data in some other registers, but their attack _never_ gets to the point where they pick the next instruction.
Likely, at the end of the exploit, arbitrary code execution or privilege escalation has been unlocked. But the exploit chain itself doesn't go through a stage of arbitrary execution (either through ROP, or executable stack). That's how I like to distinguish anyway.
Yes, the author uses specialized terminology which is easy to misunderstand. They automate DEP compliant transition from buffer overflow to RCE.
> Data-only attacks ... have long been considered too sophisticated and niche to pose a practical threat.
I thought the whole point of fuzzing was an example of finding data-only attacks.
Corrupting program memory via malicious input data is known as a code-execution attack, not a data-only attack. The fuzzed program usually crashes because its executable code or the control flow got overwritten directly by the input, or indirectly by the program code itself when it tries to process bad data. An exploit involves injecting external code, or overwriting memory addresses (like a virtual table or a stack return address) to override the original logic flow to do something else.
A data-only attack would be an attack that reuses the original logic by only corrupting data inputs (such as a flag or a file path), without overwriting code or overriding the logic. W^X, stack canary, or CFI won't work in these cases since no code is tampered by the attacker. In almost ever talk about compiler mitigations, you always hear a passing-by mention of data-only attacks - before the speaker immediately dismisses them as an academic curiosity when the software industry is still facing a flood of stack smashing and ROP attacks.
> The fuzzed program usually crashes because its executable code or the control flow got overwritten directly by the input, or indirectly by the program code itself when it tries to process bad data.
Add assertions to your code. Voila, your run-of-the-mill fuzzer can now hunt for arbitrary problems with your program by turning them into crashes.
When fuzzing C programs, I usually also add undefined-behaviour sanitizers and friends, in the mode where they crash when you run into the kinds of UB they can detect.
Again, the point of a data-only attack is that you replace, say, a string with another valid string, and take control of program logic that way. For example, imagine a program that uses `system(LS_CMD_STR)`, where that LS_CMD_STR is some kind of constant holding the value "ls -lah". If an attacker can corrupt program memory in such a way that it overwrites that value with "rm / -f", no amount of assertions will trigger on this, but the program will do something much worse than expected.
In microcontroller programming, redundant data, checksumming and token-passing are sometimes used to mitigate CPU malfunctions due to electromagnetic interference (microcontrollers are often used as "programmable logic", so there's no hard layering between hardware and software, layering violation is made on purpose). If anything looks wrong, you trigger an assertion failure and reset the chip via the watchdog timer. For example, when you pass LS_CMD_STR, you would also pass the name of the caller and the CRC32 checksum of the string as arguments, and the function on the receiving side should validate them.
So I think adding assertion is definitely a way to discover data-only attacks in fuzzing, or even as a partial mitigation of these attacks. It's just stack canary for variables and strings (but as the paper authors said, complete mitigation can be impractical).
It's not bad data, that's kind of the point of it.
TFA says memory corruption is a data-only attack, because it just overwrites data in memory.
It depends on what you overwrite. If you overwrite a CPU instruction or a function pointer that followed the buffer, it's a code-execution attack. If you overwrite a data variable that followed the buffer, it's a data-only attack. I said nearly all conventional fuzzing found code-execution attacks, not data-only attacks. Isn't that clear? The former method is considered common, well-studied, with defenses, the latter method is considered rare, niche, and defenseless.
Conventional fuzzing tries to overwrite executable code? I thought crashes are usually due to dereference of a corrupted pointer leading to unmapped memory.
This showed me that taint analysis is kind of slept on. Maybe we should invest in better tooling that allows us to reverse engineer with taint analysis easier. Do we think it is a UI problem? Of course over tainting is a thing, but maybe we can make it work with better UI.
Is that really the name for it? It sounds revolting
Can’t we just use prim and proper terms like provenance
"Provenance" tracks where data came from, but "taint" tracks where unsafe data can flow. It's a uhh not so sexy term, but it is the industry standard term.
It’s been a fair few years since I got to write some new Perl but I’m fairly sure you could use Perl -T which meant any variables passed into the program (typically from cgi) would be tainted until you safely extracted the contents (via a regex for example)
The word itself is getting on for a thousand years old, originally solely in the sense of colour dyes, similar to “stain”, but over time this was adopted to be “to corrupt” in a more figurative sense, I suspect the same root for taint and stain, with taint more indisputable and harder to remove perhaps.
Seems appropriate to use in computing.
The main meaning of taint is contamination. Not really a revolting term to me. Maybe you associate it with some of its other meanings and that’s why you find it revolting.
“Taint analysis” is certainly evocative.
Taint analysis won't help against memory safety vulnerabilities that directly scribble over untainted data to make it malicious. You need something like a secure enclave to prevent that kind of tampering.
[dead]
Is this article saying that this AI tool has found 944 NEW unpatched exploits in nginx, and a comparable number in other commonly used server software?
First, there is no "AI", the author showed even a simple static analysis as proposed by them was sufficient to find data-only attacks, in contrary to the common belief that you need heavily customized exploits per application for this kind of attacks. This is the whole point of the research.
Next, I believe they found 944 available "data-only gadgets" usable by a pre-existing memory corruption bug. You still need to find a memory corruption bug first to use them, in the same sense that you need to hunt for ROP gadgets to get arbitrary code execution on a W^X system.
I'm positively surprised that their tool is not yet another LLM wrapper.
The quality of research (and by extent HN submissions) has really plummeted since LLMs have become marginally useful
(2024) in title/article date already spoils that, this article comes from BC/AC era boundary, so the tool itself must've been written in BC era. LLMs wouldn't be useful for any such thing for another year.
(BC and AC are obviously Before and After ChatGPT.)
The last 2 years has been a very long eon.
Well, with all the enshitified complex file formats out there, I bet this is a "piece of cake" (for the people of the field with good tooling) to find exploits in the state management of code dealing with them. And very high computer languages/specialized script languages won't protect anything as those are "logic errors". I think "closing" state machines on such complex file formats is just pointless, better design new file formats from the ground up, but this time with a much stronger focus on robustness (keep that state machine as small and simple as possible and super rigorously well defined, and I mean like maths maniacs). And it is hard: because the purpose of the file format must come AFTER the robustness, namely tough compromise on the purpose itself may have to be done.