I appreciate this straightforward response. I reported it. It is AI generated and as you predicted another developer replicated the same idea. The first vulnerability appears to not work in reality but the second and third do work, and are getting looked at. I come from a security engineering background and I saw this without AI and I got AI to help me figure out just what the problem was. Thank you.
Michael Lazin .. τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἐστίν τε καὶ εἶναι. On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 11:45 PM Aaron Rainbolt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2026 19:50:59 -0700 > Michael Lazin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I have been looking into some of our lower-level hardware interfaces, > > specifically auditing the AHCI driver (drivers/ata/ahci.c) through a > > zero-trust hardware lens. With the rise of malicious peripherals and > > PCIe-level attacks, I am concerned about the level of implicit trust > > placed in MMIO responses within this driver. > > This sounds like something that should probably be sent to the upstream > kernel developers, not to Debian... > > This also feels AI-generated. There have been a lot of good > AI-generated vulnerability reports recently, but there have been bad > ones too. The burden rests on you to verify if the potential vulns > you've found with the help of AI are real vulns, and to explain to the > kernel developers how those vulns work, since the upstream developers > are likely flooded with work dealing with legitimate vulnerability > reports on top of their usual workload. If you don't have the skill to > do that, it's probably best to leave vuln hunting to others; AI > generally tells multiple researchers about the same vulns at the same > time, so there's a good chance anything you may have found will be > found by someone else too. > > -- > Aaron >
