>Through high-level contacts I had at Microsoft I was asked to file a vulnerability report – the drop-down list of affected products on Microsoft's web page didn't even include Copilot. I selected "Other," reported the flaw, and a day later heard back from their security team:

>>"We've looked over your report, and what you're reporting appears to be a bug/product suggestion, but does not meet the definition of a security vulnerability."

>That left me wondering whether Microsoft's security team knows enough about LLM internals and prompt attacks to be able to grade a potential security vulnerability. Perhaps – but I got no sense from this response that this was the case.

I'm sympathetic with the author. He doesn't trust the boilerplate response he got. Calling it a "product suggestion" doesn't inspire confidence even if I understand why they'd call it that.

I think that the author doesn't understand what happened, but it must look concerning to them. Maybe it started outputting code as babble because more LLMs have been trained with that? That could be concerning without coding experience, especially if the words that the author can understand sound important or relevant to the LLM itself.