These devices are already very weak and many of them even do non-TLS updates with no signing check anyway.

If it has been so weak already, it can't be weaker.

Not always true. I have IoT devices where a valid certificate is useful because the original host doesn't exist anymore and the certificate isn't pinned.

Flashing the devices require direct UART/USB access which may involve soldering, if it even exists. This leak is gold for those because these devices will never get an updated CRL.

This language already does that by "ignore previous instructions" as function call and "what happened at tiananmen square?" as function return.

The solution is obvious. AI can write a transpiler from this unsafe language to safe language which have 1:1 mapping to unsafe language, working on safe language, then transpile back to unsafe language.

I could come up making a transpiler before even finish reading this article. No reason the current AI models can't do it.

There is a reason they can't do it: because the safety guardrails are triggered before they have a chance to do so.

Given the intelligent level of current top tier models, AI can write a transpiler from this unsafe language which contains syntax like "ignore previous instructions..." as function call to a safe language. It work on safe language and transpile back to this unsafe language.

Easy.

It's interesting that everyone thinks this is how the AI should approach this to beat it. But in my benchmarks I haven't seen any model approach it this way. Approaching it this way also requires interpreting the spec correctly, which not all models do.

If this is true, NIST staff were a bunch of moron who simply used libc's default RNG(infamous for poor quality), initialize it by srand(time(NULL)) (also bad practice), and then throw out the first hundreds to thousands 20 bytes and use the 20 bytes.

NIST published recommended SEEDS in 1999 July. They spend 2 years checking 20 bytes SEEDS that were generated by casually by a hand of amateurish method.

I do not believe this claim. It just Claude hit a jackpot that happens to match 20 bytes.

I don't think you understand what NIST was doing. The quality of the random number generator does not matter for this operation. Competing curves replace the RNG entirely with mathematical constants like pi and e.

Interesting theory but 20 bytes seems like a lot to match given only the entropy of dates. Can you make this theory quantitative, IE show that with the entropy of n, arbitrary date, and choice of rand implementation there are sufficient degrees of freedom to hit 20 bytes?

> coincidentally matching 20 bytes

Ahaha ha hahaha haha ha haaha ha.

No.

The real appeal process requires to PHYSICALLY meet their representative HUMAN, showing the printed appeal documents and let their HUMAN read that document so there is no excuse of whatever idiotic automation Alphabet may be using and let HUMAN decides.

What happen if he reported to police that Google was sexually harassed him by sending him nude?

A sad fact is they spend billions on AI research bu they still think piracy is easier than obtaining legitimate copy.

We all know through the history that if the benefit of piracy is more than the money, we can't stop piracy.

The purpose of copyright law is to help developing the culture. It means these publishers are doing bad job distributing the copyright works.

When does the people learn enough is enough and ditch Windows?

Because nobody is prosecuted for scam and malicious ads.

People at Alphabet and all website owners which use AdSense and showed scam and malicious ads must be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced jail time in order to stop this mess.

But it looks like all the countries are busy age restricting Internet instead. By age restricting, it means private information gathering which fuel ad companies more.