Original title: Your Space is My Zone: Demystifying the Security Risks of AI-Powered Applications on Pre-Trained Model Hubs
Remarking conclusion: "Alarmingly, we find thousands of apps leaking credentials, hundreds containing input injection vulnerabilities that allow arbitrary code execution, and tens harboring embedded backdoors—indicating active exploitation." AI use for creating applications seems insecurity by default...
Title should have [2025], since this blog is from 2025.
On subject: In 2026 I hope the wars FOSS vs OSS and copyleft vs permissive are over.
This article has a lot of nonsense. In practice you should choice a license that meets your goal. So do not choice a license from an ideology , a license has a purpose and every project has a different goal.
"This means as an author of some copyleft code, I have special rights that my users don’t have: I am allowed to use my code for proprietary purposes" -> Nonsense: Everyone has the same rights! You can not revoke a license, and re-licensing your own GPL code has more nuances than stated in this article.
For every OSI approved license is a place in 2026 and a good use case thinkable. So some more nuance in 2026 and more references to scientific studies over this subject of more than 30 years history would improve this old article.
Your questions is rather general. But a try:
"What’s the best Postman alternative if privacy is a concern — Postmate Client vs. Thunder Client?"
- Always use a local client (100%) that you fully control.
- Be aware tat many providers have advanced finger printing techniques. So reaching out to a remote API is always a severe privacy risks! At least when you make an API call from you 'own' computer/home/work to an API-service.
- Most 'tools' for making API tools use telemetry. If you use a tool within a IDE that uses Telemetry you could be harmed twice. (E.g. VSCode with Thunder Client)
Nice write-up... but with strong opinions that seem plausible, yet are highly debatable.
"The rise of the long tail" -> To my knowledge the 'long tail' was years ago a subject of many scientific business studies. The conclusion: proof was never found for this economic theory. And yes, the book of Chris Anderson (20 years ago!) was an attractive read that also seems plausible.
"The barrier to entry for software has fallen." -> This is the marketing mantra since 4GL and IDEs. Visual coding IDEs, so coding without knowing coding never worked out as marketers promised, Same with nocode things years later.
Truth is programming in a natural language is very hard, that's why we have programming languages. And the hard part was never programming, but problems solving and gathering requirements before programming. Or during programming if you are fan of the agile community. AI/ML technology is a great tool for solving some problems, but certainly many problems can not be solved with AI for coming years. AI can not replace people, but people who do not add much value are, have been, and always will be the first to encounter technology progress.
Assuming you have a c or cpp project: compile and build it first , run the tests if any.. and run cscope or equivalent on code you want to change first.
The OWASP Board has released its new Strategic Plan to tackle software security.
I haven’t quite made up my mind about the certification programmes yet. There are already so many out there for security, and most seem to cover the same ground.
Nice article. But the warning can be stronger imho:
Instead of: "Don’t assume your results are the same as anyone else’s."
"The results search you get from G*gle results are unique."
G*gle does not use the easy to use Lucene search syntax but has many 'magic' things, like:
Searching for high-quality Open Access content or solid technical answers on software challenges requires a rigorous scientific methodology, combined with creativity and extensive experience. Despite being a crucial competency, it is rarely taught in depth.
Even with the rise of LLMs, effectively navigating search results remains an unsolved problem.