Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vntok's commentslogin

A great typo.

If you do that you'll quickly pivot to selling drugs and gambling tips.

From my experience I have not experienced customer feed / customer thinking spiralling towards drugs and gambling tips.

Then also, companies are guided by some mission / values which might prevent you from going into that direction, unless you are working for an online gambling company


I sincerely do not follow how you get to drug and gambling when you think about being customer-first, what am I missing?

The idea is to be honest with ourselves. Once you start there, solutions arise.

Sorry in advance if you were joking, but for readers who aren't in the know: Hugo had, in fact, two 9.3 CVSS vulnerabilities just 11 days ago...

https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-89259

https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-89258


To be clear, those are CVEs in the tooling, not in the generated static sites. Not great, but very different from this WordPress CVE

I have full control over the inputs for hugo and the output is pure static HTML. It's better if there are no CVEs but I really don't sweat these. My Hugo template runs 100% pure CSS and no JS.

This seems like a really good example of Base CVSS scores not telling us much on their own.

For the Wordpress RCE (nominally CVSS 9.2), it looks like many standard deployments of WordPress would be affected, barring extra mitigations. But in the case of these Hugo ones (9.3), it looks like very specific circumstances (anti-mitigations, if you will) are needed. E.g. running arbitrary builds of untrusted user content without a sandbox; running it in a GitHub workflow against PRs from untrusted contributors, etc.


Yes. It's amazing how supposedly security professionals only take the base score "as is" and never adjust.

Many GUI CVSS calculators exist just for this, it takes a minute to requalify a vuln and adjust its CVSS based on your specific environment.

This one for example is pretty basic but works well: https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0

> These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of base metrics and are assigned metric values based on the component placement in organization infrastructure.


You need to reason about both probability and impact, not one or the other. In your example, it just means that the probability is very low, perhaps even down to 0 in your specific case. But even at a low probability, the impact of the vulnerability remains very high so it helps you reason about it.

For example, you might react differently to these scores:

- <8/10: check that your systems are indeed secure

- 8.6/10: check that your systems are indeed secure and tell your junior analyst to train on creating a custom monitoring rule for that attack and follow-up with you

- 9.8/10: double-check that your systems are indeed secure, ensure that if you had a hole another security layer would have caught it (if not, that's a problem!), set up a honeypot to get some info on the assholes that have repeatedly attacked you lately and will undoubtedly try to 0-day you in the next few hours, etc.


Ironically, this 9 years old comment on the official documentation page of one of the affected functions perfectly describes both the nature and remediation of this major security flaw:

> Paul Ryan 9 years ago

> Note that locate_template() does not prevent directory traversal attacks, so if you’re passing a user-provided template name to the function, be sure to verify that it’s from one of the three appropriate locations (active theme directory, parent theme directory, or /wp-includes/theme-compat/ directory).

https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/functions/locate_t...


It's a mystery how this exploit was found.

/sarc


Ahahah I remember to have patched themes for clients by hand, years ago. A different time, where a core team would for whatever reason leave security holes around to be sure you need three frameworks around their pile of dung code.

I wonder if they'll add a `locate_template_safe()` function to "fix" it. :D

> This is a somewhat situational Wordpress RCE that impacts only a couple themes. reply

That is dangerously incorrect, a whole lot of themes are vulnerable. The main pre-condition, "presence of a top-level directory named 'page-xxx' like 'page-templates' in the theme's directory" is actually an official recommendation in the WordPress documentation.

See here: https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/classic-themes/templa...

> As discussed in Organizing Theme Files, WordPress can recognize page templates stored in the theme’s root folder or in a first-level subdirectory of the theme folder. *The page-templates/ folder is a common convention* for organizing global page templates, but it is not required. Page templates can also be stored in other first-level subdirectories, such as templates/ or page_templates/.


I'm not sure I understand. That's the main pre-condition... to include an arbitrary PHP that is already in the server.

On a fresh WP install, a random user can't upload PHP files. Normally you don't even need to allow random users to register an account since avatars on comments come from gravatar anyway.


> On a fresh WP install, a random user can't upload PHP files.

Indeed, but you don't need to upload anything as long as there's already a PHP file that allows you to execute arbitrary commands somewhere on the server, right?

Well, as it turns out, the default PHP Docker image has had such a file readily available until version 8.5 =)


Jesus. I don't think WP is nice to use, but people are saying WP is crap because someone else made pearcmd.php that allows you to run arbitrary commands, and then a third someone else included that in the default PHP docker image. In this case all PHP CMS's are a directory traversal bug away from this CVE.

Indeed. Then again, it's on WordPress not to have directory traversal flaws in their core functions...

- especially the functions that are explicitely exposed to be used on front-facing interfaces (ie: templating functions).

- and especially when the security flaw in question was not only raised 9 years ago but described in details on the official documentation page of the affected function


Yeah not sure why you’re being downvoted when the built in themes are vulnerable as is the default docker image pre php8.5 which a lot of people use as a base and I bet a lot of hosting providers use as well behind the scenes.

It depends.

Are you part of the 99.99999% users of one of iOS+Apple or Androidlike+Google/Tencent or HarmonyOS+Huawei? If that's the case, you don't need to as the key is automagically saved by your OS' platform and synced with your new device.

Otherwise, you're such an extreme outlier that you probably either know what you're doing or can find out by yourself, right?


> … users of one of … Google …? If that's the case, you don't need to as the key is automagically saved by your OS' platform and synced with your new device.

This absolutely does not encourage confidence in me. We all know how easy it can be to get locked out of a Google account and have no way of getting back in unless you have enough clout to make a huge noise online so a human there pays attention instead of you being stuck in the 'ol support-bot-run-around loop. It doesn't happen often when you consider how many users there actually are out there, but the potential inconvenience is high enough that “fairly rare in the grand scheme of things” is still enough to be reason enough to be wary.


How can it be saved and synced without credentials? I'm in that overwhelming majority, but I don't grok how I can recover the account when my phone is lost/stolen/damaged. The answer appears to be, use another device that was already logged in?

The point is people like this usually are arguing as they hate adopting new tech. And they hate FAANG. No way to convince them.

True, but it would have to be more than massive (order(s) of magnitude) to offset that gap.

On some benchmarks models like Qwen 3.8 Max which cost < $6/m out cost more than Astra 6 to run at $50/m out. That’s a huge price gap and yet Astra would be cheaper if your work looks like the benchmark.

We notice with frontier models like Astra and Fable that one might use a lot less tokens than the other to complete the task thereby being the better deal in spite of the far higher token cost.

What is Astra $/task?

Even if OpenAI end up using 1 token for per task, if the token costs 1M$ , some people will find it expensive.


https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-comparison-tabs

Astra on xhigh has a cost per task of $2.31 with an intelligence index of 53. Qwen3.8 Max has a cost per task of $5.41 with an intelligence index of 45. Pricing for GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) is $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output tokens. Pricing for Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output tokens.

Obviously this is just one measure of all of this (and Qwen 3.8 Omni Flash isn't yet available), but I think this illustrates the point well. These relative task costs are pretty consistent across different analysts. Cost per token is arguably a useless measure at this point in most circumstances.


Did you open the repo? There's a subdirectory with two dozens of files, around 300Kb of text.

Storing/visualizing small text changes over time as revisions is exactly what Git is excellent at, how else would you keep track of updates to the prompts?


> how else would you keep track of updates to the prompts

I dont? because prompts are not a thing that are ever needed to be tracked lol.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: