It's not a novel attack: it's novel negligence.

The best improvement would be to blame yourselves instead of Claude.

Hi fny,

That's fair feedback. What I'm trying to express is the complexity of it.

For this to work:

1. The attacker had to get access to our internal gateway

2. Claude code had to embed the github oauth cli token in tool call responses (not directly, but as part of an embedded url call).

3. We had to enable request/response logging.

4. The attacker had to be aware of this token logging circumstance, then harvest multiple user account tokens (one of which had to belong to an org admin)

5. The attacker had to wait for / hope that we would expand the release trust boundary (as we did on Monday)

among other things. This wasn't a "whoops we had shitty governance around our auth tokens" kind of situation, it involved a number of non-trivial circumstances many of which were beyond the attacker's direct control, including Claude Code behavior of which we were not previously aware of, and a sophisticated attacker.

- Krrish

FYI - accidentally logging secrets is a fairly common thing that happens. Request/response bodies are fairly common place that would include secrets or PII. but in general you’d be surprised what other actually innocent places that end up accidentally including secrets. Having credential scanners on the logs is a way to catch these early.

As for sophisticated attackers, I think that phrase should probably be retired at this point. Every attacker is a fairly sophisticated now since you can automate that sophistication. Attackers before used to have a set of tools that would try to connect or execute a bunch of automated prescripted checks, while any attacker now can automate the generation of those tools and scripts on demand

I often wonder if it's possible to organize to have people collude to refuse any price above breakeven.

I became a good engineer by answering questions on StackOverflow, and I'm upset that this form of mentorship evaporating.

- I learned to communicate answers crisply to others

- I saw what made software hard to grok which helped me write better software

- I intentionally answered questions I did not know the answer to from the outset to push me to learn

I grew tremendously by helping others, and things look pretty bleak if we all become glued to token streams instead.

Can we add guest post to the title? A lot of people here are attributing this to him incorrectly.

You can tell it not to do this?

> You can get to the wiki contents in a single click from anywhere in the repo There is no 2.

2. Non-technical people can work with tools they know.

3. You may not want to deal with pull, push, merge for every edit.

4. You may not want to deal with PRs for every edit.

5. Setting up `/docs` takes work. Wikis are just there.

Mintlify and others turned this sort of convenience into a business.

While I'm excited for more entrants in this space. It's depressing that there's no way to measure how much effort was put in a piece of software.

The distrust I feel for "Show HN" posts is depressing.

I know this will sound absurd, but in the good old days, even the claim of having built something indicated quality. This hubris is not limited to the front page, I've experience new products from well establish companies that are horseshit because they vibe code without doing any real QA or UX polish.

The convergence of claim with product as opposed vaporware is toxic.

I get the same feeling, it's difficult to estimate if it's just a vibe-coded platform, or a carefully crafted project; if it's a one-man job that can crumble at any time, or a stable service powered by a motivated team. The comparison with other services is also not super honest, cherry-picking elements to put in bold (e.g. the higher price than GitLab that is highlighted, or the Agent access), when it has nothing to be ashamed of.

OP seems quite knowledgeable (e.g. https://ogirardot.writizzy.blog/p/rickub-1-8-faster-then-git...), and their company ARUKU has been established in 2011, which makes me a bit more confident in this platform. But there are no details about the team, the software, since how much time they're working on it, etc.

At the same time, if you just use public repositories and synchronize them somewhere else for backup, there's not much risk in testing it. There's a free tier, they do have some neat features (that they don't really advertise) if you come from GitHub, like an import process that can copy PRs and issues or good compatibility with Actions.

The UI definitely needs a bit of love. While it's quite similar to other forges (you're not lost in the interface), it feels a bit rough. And the scrollbar presence or absence pushing the whole page left or right really bothers me.

Maybe to signal the opposite. I've started using double dashes ever since LLMs stole my favorite symbol.

Why do we hope to use the same model as its own guardrail?

This approach routinely fails with a single stream of consciousness. I can't count the number of times I've had to talk myself out of doing something stupid.

In the same way, a guardrail could inject thoughts like "...but I shouldn't do that..." "...I must remember to respect..." "...these ants deserve compassion."

The guardrail could even go as far as rewriting the thoughts of a model about to go rogue.

Presumably because of performance. It'd work well though, I imagine.

Humor me and suspend disbelief.

If these models are such an existential threat to humanity, why are they controlled by two private companies?

We might as well give Anthropic our nukes too.

> If these models are such an existential threat to humanity, why are they controlled by two private companies?

The government routinely contracts with private companies to create arms and munitions. Or do you think the bombs are delivered without payloads?

Maybe we can ask in a different way: would we allow very rich individuals to obtain nukes?