29
12 New CVEs in X.Org Server and XWayland
(linuxnation.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
29 points (93.9% liked)
Linux
19436 readers
91 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So, how many of those are actually real?
All of these, presumably. The question is how many issue reports the maintainers of those two projects had to wade through to find those relevant twelve. And whether that took more work than they would have had to expend to find those bugs themselves or not.
As much as I advocate for human written code, we should also acknowledge that AI has gotten way more competent recently, esp. on the coding front. I think security and vulnerability scanning, (maybe together with code review?), should be the few valid uses of AI.
(And obviously, the human using the AI should confirm the vulnerabilities themselves first before handing it to the maintainers)
(Oh how cutely innocent you are...)
Twelve of them.
Also, remember that "AI" means scripts in this context. We've used scripts to scan for vulnerabilities for decades. That alone is neither new nor scary.
There are serions issues with AI, including how you define it, but scanning code for weak points itself, on its own, is not one. It's what you do with that data that matters.
Yes, but ai gives a lot of false positives. And when you see articles like this its hard to know if its a verified vurnebility or a potential vurnebility.
It was kind of the same with the old vurnebility test tools
Exactly.
AI is bad at a lot of things, but bug hunting isn't one of them. It still requires an expert human to be effective but it lets them review a lot more code.