> This is amazing. Page says it works on RHEL 14.3, which doesn’t exist. Current RHEL is 10.x, this must’ve been done in a TARDIS.

Indeed. "Distributions we directly verified: RHEL 14.3". Directly verified by me to be AI slop (the release page at least).

https://access.redhat.com/articles/red-hat-enterprise-linux-...

> Talk to our security experts

(at the bottom of the page)

I have a sneaking suspicion his first name is Claude. Don't get me wrong though, he is pretty good I hear.

▲

tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have no idea about this page, but Theori/Xint has a staff of veterans, they are a serious thing.

▲

0x0 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Dropping a public exploit on github before distros have patches available isn't very cool, or is that just how veterans roll these days?

	▲	tptacek an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There is no one accepted set of norms on disclosure. Any strategy you take, someone will criticize.
	▲	akerl_ an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don’t know if “cool” is the word I’d use, but there isn’t an established “right” way to disclose a vulnerability that you found outside of a contracted security review or other employment/contracting arrangement.

▲

rdtsc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that they have no idea RHEL 14, probably the most well known enterprise distro, is not a thing, and yet they "directly verified on it" casts some doubt on seriousness.

▲

stackghost 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is it more likely they have no idea what version RHEL is on, or that it's just a typo?

▲

tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know what to tell you. I'm sure you have them dead to rights on Linux distro knowledge reliability, but the exploit here is real, and the vulnerability researchers they have on staff are also real. Xint is not generally a slop factory.

It's ironic that the one thing LLMs can't do reliably in this space is "write copy for humans" (I don't trust them for that either).

	▲	JeremyNT an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Honestly I feel like a coding agent review would have caught this issue. I guess if you want to vibe-code your branded CVE web site it's not a bad idea to at least mash /review at the end. Kind of funny to do something impressive and then ignore the details on the presentation, but perhaps that's not uncommon for security researchers?
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]