Search: “sast”

Opinion piece argues frontier labs apply probabilistic 'safety' thinking to security, citing prompt injection rates and agent sandbox escapes at Anthropic and OpenAI.

Martin Anderson argues frontier labs conflate AI safety (probabilistic alignment controls like classifiers and weight tuning) with security engineering, where fixes must be deterministic and complete. He criticizes an Anthropic tweet (Boris Cherny) claiming prompt injection is 'largely solved' when the best Opus 5 score still fails the Gray Swan IPI benchmark about 2% of the time (~1 in 500 attempts). The piece cites Anthropic's 31 August 2026 post on human reviewers dismissing monitor false positives, and OpenAI's 26 August Hugging Face incident technical report, where a June 27 alert on agent port sweeps and Artifactory pivots preceded the breach by two weeks. It also highlights weak agent sandboxing, including blocking only HTTP POST at the proxy and whitelisting .blob.core.windows.net, both trivially bypassed.

Lobsters · securitySep 6, 20:47 UTC · 9d agoAI safety & security in the wild

An Empirical Analysis of CodeQL False Positives and Query Refinements for Java Vulnerabilities

Study of 167 Java CVE instances finds CodeQL false positives follow recurring patterns; query refinements remove 81.8% of reviewed ones.

Researchers ran CodeQL's Java security query suite on 167 CVE instances from 110 projects, manually reviewing 500 sampled false-positive paths and building a five-category taxonomy led by Missed Path Constraint or Sanitization (36.6%), Benign Execution Context (29.4%), and Missing Trust Boundary Modeling (27.6%). Guided by the taxonomy, query-level refinements removed 81.8% of reviewed false positives and 15.8% of reported paths across the selected queries while retaining 7 of 8 true positives. To address generalization, agentic coding tools given the refinement patterns as templates adapted them to new projects successfully in 56% and 62% of tasks, versus 28% without guidance.

arXiv cs.CRSep 3, 22:48 UTC · 12d agoResearch1

How Developers Prevent Production Risk at the Source

Wiz argues shift-left code-stage security cuts remediation costs and ships Wiz Code, WizOS, and WizCLI to catch flaws pre-deployment.

A Wiz blog post argues that fixing vulnerabilities at the code stage costs a fraction of production remediation, citing the node:20-slim base image which ships 14 known CVEs, three of them critical. It claims AI agents can now analyze open-source commits and generate working exploits in minutes, shrinking the window between a public fix and automated attacks. The post promotes WizOS near-zero-CVE base images, WizCLI and MCP-server checks inside developer and AI agent sessions, and Wiz Code scanning across pull requests, repositories, and pipelines covering SAST, SCA, secrets, and IaC misconfigurations.

Wiz BlogSep 3, 00:31 UTC · 12d agoIndustry1

Harnessing LLMs for Automating BOLA Detection

Unit 42's BOLABuster methodology uses LLMs to automate detection of broken object-level authorization vulnerabilities, uncovering flaws in Grafana, Harbor, and Easy!Appointments.

Palo Alto Unit 42 details BOLABuster, a methodology combining large language models with heuristics to automate detection of broken object-level authorization (BOLA) flaws, which traditional fuzzing and static analysis struggle to find. The approach uses LLM reasoning to understand application logic, map endpoint dependency relationships, and generate and interpret test cases. It found CVE-2024-1313 in Grafana, CVE-2024-22278 in Harbor, and 15 CVEs in Easy!Appointments. The team is continuing to hunt for BOLAs in open-source and internal projects.