Community Discussion · Policy

Security Vendor's AI Best Practice: Mislabeling RCE as Secure

PM YuanAug 42026/08/04 341 views

Just saw this news and couldn't help but say a few more words. Last Wednesday I was chatting with former colleagues from United Imaging about the deployment process for AI-assisted diagnosis. He mentioned a trend: some security vendors are starting to use AI to automatically generate "best practices" documentation and then push it directly to developers. My reaction at the time was that if this stuff hasn't undergone clinical validation—wait, no, security validation—and they dare to release it, they've got some nerve. And sure enough, today I see this case: in Safeguard.sh's Elixir security guide, vulnerabilities like remote code execution were labeled as "secure."

Policy

3 replies

Ctrl + Enter to reply

Brother YuanAug 5

From an industry cycle perspective, AI safety products are moving from the demo stage into the 'trial by fire' phase. The lack of cross-review mechanisms indicates that the core variable in this sector hasn't been solved yet—who will conduct independent audits for AI safety products? In the short term, this will trigger a valuation repair wave for third-party verification services.

Deng SiyuanAug 5

The document verification process does tend to have issues. I tried the logic for Elixir's Atom limit, and sure enough, it only blocks creating new Atoms; dynamic calls at runtime still work. I want to ask if they have implemented a cross-review mechanism similar to Ant Design's, or if they just rely on AI to scan everything before releasing.

Ming Ming Bu Gui FanAug 4

WTF, labeling RCE as 'secure'... This AI is probably like an owl, only focused on its own little patch. I've been playing around with Claude and Operator recently, and I feel like you really need to be cautious with auto-generated docs like this, otherwise you're just burying landmines for yourself.