Notices by Mark (mdh@infosec.exchange)

@GossiTheDog @tomatospy @euroinfosec I don’t really see this as a rebuttal to the original point though.

We are still left with I think 3 key bits of information:

1. Gen AI changes the economics for a bunch of attack vectors in a fairly substantial way.
2. Gen AI providers have come out to say that they absolutely have seen a lot of usage of their tools in that capacity.
3. Unlike say malware it’s really not obvious that you’re going to find the same kinds of artefacts during IR except in certain scenarios like a spear phishing campaign and I don’t know how you could say with any confidence that it was or wasn’t used in a lot of scenarios.

I don’t think any of those are particularly controversial statements at all are they?

It absolutely makes sense and is even a logical conclusion that this does indeed lead to substantial growth in attacks but I’d argue in a way that isn’t in contrast to what you said either.

@GossiTheDog @euroinfosec Given the ways in which it could and realistically would be used I’m really unclear on how on earth you could make that statement with any level of confidence. What am I missing here?

I’d offer as a counterpoint that Generative AI providers like Google have talked about watching Chinese and Iranian crews I believe (though I’m quoting something second hand here form @tomatospy if I’m remembering correctly) use it.

@patrickcmiller release the hounds.

@hakan_geijer kind of curious, does PGP still get used much in activist circles in your experience?

I thought the answer long ago was that it was bad for activists specifically because it fails in spectacular ways and has a very complicated set of workflows.

I was kind of surprised to see it mentioned here