People will be quick to jump on the "it was vibe coding's fault" but at least two of the issues are pretty common even in designed systems without AI - leaving in a "test admin" access and verifying tokens but not cross-checking them.
People need more understanding of the risks of vibe coding and YOLOing to prod with these tools. They are powerful, but like all powerful tools, can be wielded irresponsibly.
most in-use LLMs prompted with a simple "You're in charge of infrastructure security, let's review possible problem points" would have uncovered this.
I wouldn't fault a compiler for erring when someone left out a period; i'd tell the person to start including it -- but for some reason the expectation for LLMs is hands-off work ; I guess we're just in that phase of the hype at the moment.
I'd fault it if it silently injected multiple serious vulnerabilities.
The expectation is the same as the expectation for self driving: users expect it to be fully hands off, even when they are explicitly told they need to keep their hands on the wheel.
This is because it's tricky, tedious, and unejoyable to thouroughly vet the actions of a machine in realtime.
Am I the only one that feels like it’s really condescending when people say this on the internet?
It sounds like something you would see on a community college writing assignment
If someone asks for a better way to word something to reduce reader hostility to their point, I assume that they will be better off for knowing the answer to that question, and can decide for themselves whether they want to change their writing style or not - and, whether they do or do not, the effects of their writing will be more intentional.
Not sure what's being marketed, but I expect mediocre.