Maybe now that ffmpeg is using Forgejo, the ball won't be dropped like this as often. Or there'll just be a five-digit number of open pull requests instead.

No big deal? It’s not like it’s free… tokens cost money.

I doubt the real bots have any trouble bypassing it.

(There actually was one privilege escalation bug in tmux, but it actually seems like a distro packaging error. The distro setgid the executable so the resulting shell inherited the additional group. This didn’t require any exploit, that’s just how child process inheritance works.)

     val (/) : int -> (divisor:int { divisor <> 0 }) -> int

There's no viable way to statically prove at compile-time that these variables will never become zero at runtime, ultimately forcing a system of endless runtime checks (be it software or hardware)... which is why processors already throw exception interrupts when division by zero is attempted.

If you’re accepting large false positives rates: yes.

If you want users to take your warnings serious: no.

(Nitpick: you certainly don’t want to flag _all_ of them. Divisions by non-zero constants definitely should be excluded, for example (integer division by -1 can lead to overflow, but that would be a different warning))

Division can 'go wrong' for certain inputs, but it's not just division. In C, signed integer addition, subtraction, and multiplication, all give undefined behaviour on overflow.

As 'Someone' already pointed out, it's not helpful to just flag all uses of the division operator, or of other potentially dangerous operators. Minimising false positives is one of the core challenges of program analysis.

It’s surprisingly simple to setup, and the hardware requirements are pretty small for a private or small forge, as it’s usually a relatively small number of users/repos/etc.

It seems like this would have been pure fantasy not that long ago though. So why isn’t it noteworthy again? I don’t really follow what you’re complaining about.

Git is a DVCS. I know many people only ever used Git through Github and forgot what the 'D' in DVCS means but whether or not they remember what the 'D' stands for, running your own Git server is trivial. Especially in this day and age of LLMs were you can just ask: "Clone this repo and convert it to base Git repo and serve it on the LAN PLZ KTHX".

The result is going to be more stable than Github and, arguably, more secure too.

Generate multiple solutions- they do not to work 100% correctly. And than I check which I would prefer. Which is more to our applications taste.

And than I would take the vibe output as a kind of a ‚plan‘ which I use to implement but not follow 100% and at the end I take my solution and review it. I gain speed with that because I often can quickly see the pros and cons of a solution way better than when I would manually do it and hang on a major roadblock and also I even see such roadblocks in the vibe output - it’s mostly the part with an unnecessary amount of new code that looks nonsensical.

https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/8eda3c7f91e1a5b...

I get this crap when browsing on desktop a lot as well, principally because I stubbornly use Firefox as my main browser, and I habitually use a VPN when I connect my laptop to unsecured or even secured-but-accessible-to-large-numbers-of-people WiFi networks.

Like, seriously, bot detection "specialists", fuck off: I'm not a bot but your bot detection software IS shit, and I DO resent your shit software draining my battery and getting in my way. Learn to do your jobs properly, will you?

And don't come crying to me about how the problem you're trying to solve is "hard". I don't care: you chose it, you chose to considerably worsen the web browsing experience of millions of people globally, nobody made you. So go and find a different job if you're incapable of doing the one you have.

And if it's so "hard" why does your entire solution seem to be predicated on anyone's a bot if they're not running Chrome, or they are running an adblocker, or they appear to be from an unusual country that doesn't match their system language? Seriously, is this the level of sophistication you hacks operate at? To solve your "hard" problem?

You are extremely lame. Get out of my way.

They only suggested a basic guard, chich can be useless if this case never happens

An alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_lin...

The projectively extended real line defines division by zero, no reason you couldn't have a floating point type that implemented it.

>There's no viable way to statically prove at compile-time that these variables will never become zero at runtime

strongly typed programming languages like Ada allow for types which have ranges such as disallowing zero -- but also any arbitrary thing like you can create a floating point "degrees" type which is [0.0, 360.0] or any other ranged type

persisted malicious code running in your tmux process that you don't know about is probably not where you want to be, for obvious reasons.

The only thing left for you to do should be directional decisions. The LLMs should pause and rope you in if the fix involves directional/invariant changes.

We wont stop using AI.

We will use AI to check AI.

Of course this is crazy, but it will also unlock pretty insane scaling and productivity and ultimately we will manage it on either end via requirements and tests.

A.I. could also be used to port C/C++ codebases to Rust, which isn't economically feasible at the moment.

I had some git hosting up for a while, and was serving hundreds of qps and several terabytes per month. I can only imagine want significant sites are serving.

Unfortunately, if you let all the bots in, they overwhelm your servers, and then nobody can access the website.

- - -

From: Anthony Hurtado <[redacted since hn has no scrape protection]>

vpk_read_packet() divides vpk->last_block_size and (par->block_align - vpk->last_block_size) by par->ch_layout.nb_channels without checking for zero.

While vpk_read_header() validates nb_channels > 0, the codec parameters may become zero through format probing misidentification (VPK probe score is 2/3 of AVPROBE_SCORE_MAX) or codec parameter reset, causing SIGFPE.

Fix by:

- Checking nb_channels != 0 before division in vpk_read_packet

- Returning EOF for empty last blocks (last_block_size == 0)

- Validating block_count > 0 in vpk_read_header

- Validating last_block_size <= block_align in vpk_read_header

Found by fuzzing with libFuzzer + AddressSanitizer. Reproduces with 10 distinct inputs.

[patch redacted for brevity]

There are also non security bugs that don't have exploits but just make the user experience worse.

Insane scaling of bloat, bugs, and technical debt I'd say.

> We will manage it on either end via requirements and tests

It is so crazy that this is being touted as a sane strategy. When I was a much worse programmer, I tried to write a big complicated string manipulation function to take two types of scripts in a language and add diacritics. I had the requirements very clear. I had the tests very clearly with all the edge cases. But I didn't have a good and clear picture of how to attack the problem which was quite novel for me. As I got closer to passing all the tests it got exponentially more unruly and confusing. And nearing the end I was frantically changing little bits here and there wincing and praying and hoping the tests would pass. "Please work! Come on!" Then when I got close enough, I could never ever think about touching that mess again.

I was a below average programmer then throwing myself at some novel problem I didn't understand. Throwing LLMs that produce below average code at novel problems and relying on tests and requirements is not where we want to go to make real progress.

(Years later after much learning and coding myself I was able to redo the function in a totally different way. This time I actually understood how to attack the strange problem and made something clean, clear, and robust that just worked. The tests then become a secondary guardrail, not the main force of correction.)

We are seeing such a massive regression from what we've learned over the years of CS.

We didn't stop using syntactic programming languages we used code to check code.

Not sure it's really crazy at all. It's been an abstraction for programmers probably since we stopped soldering transistors to each other.

From that standpoint, it's not a crazy setup security-wise. Maybe still crazy for development.

> This is a bug found with our fuzzer: https://github.com/daedalus/fuzzer/

The big problem preventing this approach from working for numbers is that it's just so cumbersome there. Most of this is because all the arithmetic operators are bundled into a single Num typeclass, and `fromInteger :: Num a => Integer -> a` has a type that's impossible for a "non-zero number" wrapper to satisfy.

Agda is the most mature dependently typed programming languae (having been around since the 90s – it is basically Haskell on steroids), but has a more proof-assistant flavor than an actual programming language flavor. Opus & Fable write Agda quite well, so LLMs can understand dependent types.

Generating code automatically when you're not even quite sure what it is or even should be doing is insanity.

Are you implying that all code writing by LLMs atm is bug-free?

You need range proofs to be 100% safe, and then you can as well use the regular type because invalid values will not occur.

I had Fable add a new subcommand to our internal CLI tool. I reviewed and tested it locally and had to suggest several fixes that I feel like I wouldn't have had to tell a human senior engineer to do. When it finally submitted the PR, I had it on a loop waiting a few minutes for comments on the PR, then assessing/addressing/replying-to/resolving them, and then repeating again until all AI reviewers were okay with it. It ended up going through dozens of revisions and ended up with 160 comments left on the PR.

But if you don’t actually read it…