There isn't an easy exploit for this PHP vulnerability

Posted by zkldi 12 hours ago

Counter545Comment329OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by hn773746483 10 hours ago

Social media and "cybersecurity experts" had a big role in this. Stuff like "EU SAYS THIS IS A URGENT VULNERABILITY" and even the Prime Minister of Japan doing a nighttime PSA. They cite "the experts" posts on social media about the initial advisory, while the very same so-called experts share google search AI output mitigation strategies. None of these organizations or bodies had any details other than what was on the advisories and social media. (e.g "CVSS 10, that's bad!!")

To me, it seems more more akin to broadpwn, technically severe, wide scope (millions of iphones), yet will never be a one-size-fits-all-PWN-button.

Even in the age of AI, I don't think this is going to be weaponized down the line like how Eternalblue was... but I'm not the social media cybersec guy with 15000 followers, so don't take my words at face value ;)

Comment by iaaan 8 hours ago

I feel like half of working in the cybersecurity industry is just cultivating your social media persona. It's bizarre. I left a viral up-and-coming startup over it. It was mixing into everyone's personas at work in weird and uncomfortable ways, as someone who doesn't use traditional social media.

Comment by n0on3 4 hours ago

It’s not. Social media personas is most of what gets seen, hence your understandable conclusion. What most don’t see are those who do not give a damn about that and just do the work.

Comment by alfiedotwtf 7 minutes ago

Just to be clear, when we’re talking cyber security and social media, we’re talking Twitter right, or is there a new netsec waterhole? Because after Elon bought it and renamed it 卐, I saw most of the netsec community splinter and disappear

Comment by micoti 3 hours ago

Unfortunately part of some cyber sec jobs is literally doing sales. I remeber in the begging of my career I was offered cyber sec job and the guy hiring me said you will be doing sales and will be reaching out to people on top of your job. I just declined.

Comment by arcfour 3 hours ago

So I have been failing to do half of my career this whole time?

The people you hear from are famous personalities... That's the nature of being a famous personality. There are plenty of us who are just normal people with opinions of our own and no desire to cultivate a public name or face for ourselves...

Comment by ofjcihen 7 hours ago

It’s unfortunate but you’re correct.

There are a few “social media famous” cybersecurity folks really worth their salt who didn’t immediately dumpster their morals and skills at the first sign of an ego boost.

People like Krebs, Allison Nixon, Joanna Rutkowska.

Most of them though are just addicted to likes as it’s become a core part of their self worth.

Comment by genxy 6 hours ago

Most cybersecurity is performative, like war, cybersecurity is mostly boring and if you are doing your job, zero drama. If you want to stand out you need piercings and hot takes.

Comment by maeln 3 hours ago

The pop culture makes you think cybersecurity is wearing black clothes, having wild tatoos and jacking-in the matrix with a dripped up thinkpad while at the back of a nightclub. Turns out, its wearing suit, and showing slide to corporate begging them to have a review process for their firewall and a decommission plan for their 20 years old services made in java 6 and never updated.

Comment by ahofmann 5 hours ago

I would argue that Krebs is exactly the type of guy who will do anything for a good story, whatever it costs. I saw him lying more than once and this eroded my trust completely.

Comment by Darkstryder 5 hours ago

I think you’re talking about Brian Krebs while the person you’re replying to is talking about Chris Krebs.

Both of them are well known in cybersecurity but are very different people with very different reputations.

Comment by LaurensBER 5 hours ago

Would you have examples to share? I'm genuinely curious.

Comment by byt3bl33d3r 5 hours ago

you'll find egomaniacs in any industry. From experience the people who actually speak regularly at cybersecurity conferences do tend to have a "cult of personality" aura about them. Part of it is industry incentives too. If you have a bunch of stuff on Github / technical blog posts / social media presence it helps a lot finding a job. So I wouldn't necessarily entirely blame them for cultivating a social media persona.

Comment by syshyk 1 hour ago

In fairness sometimes its thrust upon some by followers themselves, just depends how they handle this _fame_.

Comment by awesome_dude 7 hours ago

Marketing, for a while, has been about the personalities of the people involved - socMed just amplifies that

Comment by vasco 6 hours ago

Not everything needs to be abbreviated

Comment by thoughtpeddler 5 hours ago

I actually rather like 'SOCMED', given that social networks these days can be weaponized in various ways, so it deserves a name akin to 'OPSEC' and other military-like terms

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by decidu0us9034 4 hours ago

People seem to not understand that cybercriminals are lazy, as well. They're not gonna sink a lot of effort into doing something technically impressive when there are way easier ways to generate a decent ROI. Why would they mess around with remote heap grooming when there are plenty of nday rce in widely-deployed enterprise slop just laying around, makes no sense.

Comment by madaxe_again 2 hours ago

This was big news because it was the news that a sector was looking for - that is, “AI Discovers a Cataclysmic and Widespread Vulnerability” - and confirmation bias does the rest.

It took me five minutes to realise that this was something of an nothingburger. As the author states, you basically have to have PHP running as root, and allow an attacker to upload and then execute malicious code on your server already - and if you’re there already the house is already on fire.

Comment by tibbar 4 hours ago

Two things can be true: it's a real, exploitable CVE 10, and it's hard enough to construct that you need a good harness + verification process to keep your LLM from cheating. So, the exploit may not be easy to construct, but it doesn't actually require the artificial settings that the OP implied.

> What we demonstrated > Pre-authentication RCE on WordPress, Drupal and Joomla

[0] https://www.wiz.io/blog/php2shell-php-rce

Comment by dikei 27 minutes ago

From my understanding, the PHP bug is memory disclosure.

The RCE exploit is application dependent: it requires exploitable PHP code already deployed in the server. However, that exploitable code path is widely deployed by the most popular PHP software: WP, Drupal, Joomla, etc, so in practice most PHP deployments are vulnerable to the RCE attack.

Comment by lwhi 4 hours ago

In practical terms:

1. An attacker identifies a publicly accessible website running vulnerable PHP.

2. They send specially crafted HTTP requests to the website.

3. The requests trigger vulnerabilities in PHP's internal memory handling.

4. If exploitation succeeds, the attacker can execute arbitrary code on the server under the privileges of the affected PHP process.

Comment by tempfile 1 hour ago

I don't understand this comment. You seem to be describing in basic terms what a remote code execution vulnerability is. What does that have to do with the comment you're replying to?

Comment by lwhi 34 minutes ago

I think the original comment may have been amended.

Either that, or I wasn't fully awake when I wrote it.

Comment by nallerooth 4 hours ago

This is such a strange claim from someone trying to sound knowledgable in the field of cyber security (maybe they are, I have no idea who this person is). Even if the exploit would be difficult to use properly, it's not like there's a lack of groups out there trying. Anyone serious about this would consider the fact that a working PoC was reported to the PHP security team. They confirmed the vulnerability and started making a lot of noise about the severity of it, by reporting 2 CVEs and pushing the patch to Linux distros ahead of the official patch release.

Trying to understand what the message of the post is all about, I flipped the whole thing around in my head - and the message is basically "you don't need to upgrade your servers". Which is something someone with a working exploit would say. Or it's just noise on the Internet.

Comment by pms 2 hours ago

That's clearly not the message, the author writes at the top:

> You should patch your servers anyway. There is a real vulnerability here, but exploiting it is significantly harder than people are making it out to be.

The take-home message is about human herding behavior being reinforced by LLM use:

> There's something important to be said here about how many people have Claude/GPT make design decisions for them, and how AI is the primary decision maker in the world right now. You've got this bizarre case of "Decision Schelling Points" where a method of solving a problem is extremely overrepresented, because it's what Claude does out of the box.

Comment by athrowaway3z 1 hour ago

And when the prevailing wisdom loaded into Claude is making people do dumb shit, then you write a blog post complaining about it.

---

Having Claude re-inforce to people the severity - who do not have the security background to make a call - is a feature of herd behavior.

The risk is all that mattered.

The risk, unless the original reports have been lies, is very real.

Posting this AI complaint-blog because with hours of hindsight nobody released a seflreplicating variant, is the wrong lesson at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

I guarantee you there well be a better time to post this complaint about AI-driven herd behavior. But it was not today about this.

Comment by silentbob7 2 hours ago

I would like to disagree, I read it like - people calm down, no need to panic. As vanilla php with default config is not easily rce exploitable.

Why attacking him personally?

Comment by syshyk 1 hour ago

Because it goes against the grain maybe?

Try telling people they are wrong often enough it happens a lot. ad hominem.

Virtue signalling is really coming more of a problem these days, specially in the security sphere.

Comment by samuell 2 hours ago

> it's not like there's a lack of groups out there trying.

Indeed. And those who knows how to implement this, might also be the ones with capabilities to deploy it on a large scale (via bot nets or whatever).

What about state actors, suddenly getting a possibility to plant backdoors in millions of websites, etc.

You don't have to be too imaginative to see the "economics" of this.

Comment by nemothekid 8 hours ago

For me, what was strange is there were no write-ups on how the vulnerability actually worked. It really does feel like a lot of people went "Claude found a bug, and Claude says it's dangerous" but no one actually verified how exploitable it actually is? Not to say its worth ignoring, but compared to Heartbleed (where exploits had to be written by hand) there are a lot fewer active PoCs.

Comment by letmevoteplease 8 hours ago

There are multiple write-ups on how the vulnerability works. The Calif one is the most detailed. Also, no one used Claude. There's a whole world of information out there when you read the original sources instead of social media distortions.

https://calif.io/php2shell/

https://www.wiz.io/blog/php2shell-php-rce

Comment by infinite_spin 8 hours ago

> Calif identified a critical flaw using GPT‑5.6 Sol as part of our Patch the Planet initiative, with Wiz also independently discovering and reporting both vulnerabilities

https://openai.com/index/coordinated-disclosure-of-critical-...

> Using Gemini 4 Argon, the team at Wiz has shown why frontier AI is a game-changer for cyber defense. For over a decade, these critical vulnerabilities remained unaddressed because vulnerability discovery and exploitation were incredibly complex.

- Raluca Ada Popa, Head of Gemini Security, Google DeepMind

Comment by malfist 7 hours ago

See? No Claude. Never mind that other man behind the curtain

Comment by syshyk 52 minutes ago

Claude is the new Hoover.

Comment by what 7 hours ago

Neither of those are Claude. Checkmate.

Comment by SyneRyder 5 hours ago

They even did try Claude Mythos earlier in the year, and it didn't find this. There's a reason "no-one used Claude" for this now.

"Earlier this year, we worked with Alpha-Omega to scan PHP with Anthropic's Claude Mythos. But since the Mythos scan, we have added other tools, including OpenAI's Daybreak Red for validating reports and exploits, alongside sanitizer builds and reproduction environments that match our CI on every platform PHP supports."

https://thephp.foundation/blog/2026/10/21/todays-php-securit...

Comment by alt227 4 hours ago

The fact that Mythos didnt find this is pretty damning for Anthropics claims.

Comment by 7 hours ago

Comment by NewEntryHN 4 hours ago

> The Calif one is the most detailed. Also, no one used Claude.

be me

click link

typical ai-designed website

Comment by ferngodfather 4 hours ago

"it's not claude"

Comment by 63stack 32 minutes ago

AI generated comics for your CVEs, I can't even anymore

Comment by bitlad 6 hours ago

This is the official exploit video in the writeup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfWZrdzvooc

Comment by goalieca 5 hours ago

This is the least professional Video I’ve ever seen for anything like this. I can’t even follow what’s happening on screen.

Comment by fock 4 hours ago

that's the point: it essentially shows (notice the --profile-flag) the work of 2 months making the exploit work reliably on every app-php/fpm-linux-combination. The only purpose is to spread fear - and then have 50% of the internet update to a patched version with 425 changed files reviewed by ~100people and their clankers at 1400 UTC sharp while for the vast majority (using fpm like recommended for ~10years everywhere...) disabling the progress-something-flag and (optionally...) disabling multipart-uploads would have nicely mitigated this.

Comment by IshKebab 2 hours ago

> disabling the progress-something-flag and (optionally...) disabling multipart-uploads would have nicely mitigated this.

I wouldn't be so sure. Many vulnerabilities have been "fixed" by blocking the particular ingress path of the demo exploit, and then it turns out that there were plenty more ways to exploit the bug, they just picked the easiest one.

Comment by joquarky 1 hour ago

Yep, perhaps turning off the feature doesn't stop the data from being parsed.

Comment by BetterThanSober 4 hours ago

Have you tried asking Claude? Maybe we're in the age of agent-to-agent communication /s

Comment by SignalsFromBob 3 hours ago

The video looks like it's making this whole thing out to be a joke. Everything about it conveys a lack of seriousness. The dancing cartoon character, the ascii art, the music, the whiz-bang visual effects that obscure anything interesting or useful.

Comment by bitlad 2 hours ago

this video made the government websites go offline and patch their servers.

Comment by 3 hours ago

Comment by 6 hours ago

Comment by ra0x3 7 hours ago

Haven't you heard? The popular thing to do nowadays is to accuse someone of using AI the second anything is produced whatsoever.

Comment by ultrarunner 7 hours ago

Interestingly enough there are papers that suggest that AI feeding on itself will degrade output quality over time. What I've noticed from my peers is that everything produced now looks the same, and they're sick of it.

Comment by DonHopkins 6 hours ago

Someone had to say it:

DSHR's Blog

I'm David Rosenthal, and this is a place to discuss the work I'm doing in Digital Preservation.

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Coprophagia Is Bad For You

https://blog.dshr.org/2026/06/coprophagia-is-bad-for-you.htm...

Comment by infinite_spin 7 hours ago

I do tend to disclose my use of AI, but at the same time I don't feel like I'm required to. I'm doing it to signal that my use of AI was productive, and of value to people beyond myself.

Comment by wavemode 7 hours ago

but... Calif have said that AI did find this bug.

Comment by thoughtpeddler 5 hours ago

I'm not saying the 'Claude says this is bad so therefore it's bad' is at the heart of this PHP vuln, but I'm also seeing the same phenomenon in workplace settings with 'meatproxy'-behavior of so much AI use that tends to overfit and hyperfocus on narrow issues, that then punts the work to other people in ways that just waste time (whereby pre-AI, humans would simply not have the capacity to investigate minuscule issues so they'd never be reported as such). But these days, it's just hardcore meatproxy and reverse centaur vibes all over the place (people just acting as the face of AI, and creating so much work that the other people can't really keep up with any of it anymore), and I wouldn't be surprised if that's happening to some extent in infosec more broadly too. (not saying the vulns and exploits aren't real - but there's definitely a long tail of them now where only a few are deserving of a lot of attention, patching, mitigations etc).

Comment by jdprgm 6 hours ago

Agreed. The only main post was somebody on jackly something .com who overdosed on the matrix and communication skills of a squirrel picking random tokens from a dozen trees.

I'm actually curious if a lot of shit got hacked because so far it doesn't seem so. Though it seems like it should have? We always see these catastrophic vulnerabilities showing up but when are the ones where it is actually just widespread publicly dumping databases everywhere and at a point where someone non technical even registers it.

Comment by technion 6 hours ago

I'm sure there is more to it than generally "ask Claude". I asked Claude this as a joke and it downgraded all the way to Sonnet before it would answer, and I was previously approved for their dual use cyber program.

The latest POC video for the php2shell exploit features a dancing anime girl. How would you create a video like this?

Comment by gkanai 5 hours ago

> How would you create a video like this?

You would need to hire the team that made the original video (which as of this comment has 148 million views)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_zad39Uhw

Comment by Perz1val 3 hours ago

The writeups showed up after 14UTC, after the embargo. All of those clowns sharing non working PoCs didn't actually know the bug, they only contributed to the general hysteria

Comment by kgeist 10 hours ago

I ran 2 PoCs from GitHub today: one indeed expected Local File Inclusion (LFI) to already be present (so it's just LFI with extra steps), and the other one didn't work at all out of the box without some modifications (although I used the same Docker images and all). The second PoC did trigger a real stale write bug in the end, but it didn't demonstrate actual RCE; it just triggered a stale write. And then I wondered, is this the first time ever that the PHP runtime has had a memory corruption bug? I doubt it (I remember a few years ago we had random crashes in production under high load due to an opcache bug). And if it's not the first memory corruption bug in the PHP runtime, why is it being proclaimed the worst vulnerability in years?

Comment by bunderbunder 10 hours ago

There is an argument to be made that taking down such a sizable chunk of the Internet automatically qualifies it as a pretty severe vulnerability, even if no actual exploits were involved in causing it.

More seriously, though, I read it as bad because of the potential. All versions of PHP going back a full two decades were affected, all users of PHP are affected regardless of which features they use, and it’s still unclear if there’s an effective mitigation. So the blast radius if anyone does/did have a working exploit would have been enormous.

Comment by cpburns2009 8 hours ago

I'm in charge of my employer's ecommerce website. To me there's a critical difference in severity between a RCE vulnerability and being to takedown/crash a website.

Comment by prox 3 hours ago

This is all hindsight talking. You act on the information as it becomes available. At the moment, the being safe than sorry rule applied.

Comment by NackerHughes 8 hours ago

It didn't 'take down a sizable chunk of the Internet'. Site owners took down their sites because of FUD and mass hysteria.

Comment by Dylan16807 8 hours ago

It's not getting tripped by "mass hysteria" to be careful and go offline for a couple hours.

Your average site is fine at 99.9% uptime.

Comment by theboblong 3 hours ago

We do need to eventually see the proof that this was so urgent. Because if it wasn't then this was effectively a massive DOS attack on society.

"9.2" is a big claim and a powerful justification for action, but with OpenAI involved my faith is very low that this isn't largely a publicity stunt. Especially given the age of the vulnerability.

Comment by user43928 3 hours ago

This should be somewhat testable.

I'd set up a model with cyber capabilities, maybe GLM 5.3, not sure if it needs to be abliterated?

Disable web access and let it work on exploiting the pre-patch PHP version in a VM, given the info we had yesterday.

Can it do it? How long does it take, and writing the findings into a skill, how quickly can it be used on new targets?

I'd be interested in giving it a try, but unfortunately I'm very busy this week.

Comment by philsquared_ 7 hours ago

It's risk assessment, nothing more. Some weighed the risk high and paused their site. Nothing wrong with that and not hysteria or FUD.

Comment by devin 6 hours ago

I think the article is suggesting that a sober risk assessment was not done by most folks period, not that they merely perceived the risk differently.

Comment by 20k 6 hours ago

You've got under 5 minutes to decide whether or not a widely reported critical security vulnerability actively being exploited in the while is severe enough to warrant taking down your site or not. The downside for taking down your site is approximately 0, and the upside is that you don't get shrekd

No security expert can or should work that fast. Its a completely reasonable thing to do given the hyperbolic reporting just in case it turns out to be true. Some websites being down for a few hours doesn't end the world

Comment by popcornricecake 27 minutes ago

> The downside for taking down your site is approximately 0

> Some websites being down for a few hours doesn't end the world

Many governmental websites are still down and they say might stay down for days or weeks. Some are not directly related to PHP, but auth doesn't work due to firewall hardening or similar. There definitely is a non-zero downside.

Comment by prox 3 hours ago

Agreed. This is all lazy chair hindsight talk, maybe by those not affected by it. In the moment you act on the imperfect information you have available and you use the safe than sorry rule. And to demand perfect information is also a fallacy, it doesn’t exist until after the fact.

Comment by plorg 5 hours ago

Presumably the lack of sober risk assessment was on the part of the hyperbolic reporters.

Comment by 6 hours ago

Comment by fwlr 9 hours ago

> why is it being proclaimed the worst vulnerability in years?

Also announced today: OpenAI’s software vulnerability initiative.

Comment by croniev 5 hours ago

Do you mean Daybreak and/or Patch the Planet? They are not new (https://openai.com/index/patch-the-planet/)

Or do you mean something different?

Comment by fwlr 3 hours ago

I mean Patch the Planet. This was the first I had heard of it, and I assumed from seeing the press releases from OAI working their way through journalism’s digestive tract that it was announced today - but perhaps it was previously announced.

If that is case, I’ll refine my statement to “Also happening today: OpenAI is doing a PR push on their software vulnerability initiative”, which I think suffices to convey the same meaning as the original.

Comment by 7 hours ago

Comment by nicce 2 hours ago

All the people with LLM on their hands, looking for fame to post PoCs on GitHub, but without zero understanding whether it actually exploited the described vulnerability. Even that most cited blog post here was pure slop, and the exploit did not actually work.

Comment by nickysielicki 9 hours ago

Docker images from Wordpress, joomla, and drupal were all exploitable.

https://www.wiz.io/blog/php2shell-php-rce

Comment by Chaosvex 8 hours ago

Name a more iconic trio when it comes to exploits.

Comment by panki27 4 hours ago

Windows, Exchange, Active Directory.

Comment by SOLAR_FIELDS 8 hours ago

But these communities all patched it immediately too. Does that not say something about the iconic trio when it comes to responsiveness?

Comment by santoshalper 8 hours ago

They've had a lot of practice. Usain Bolt was also really fast because he ran a lot.

Comment by system2 8 hours ago

Not a trio, but Magento beats all of these 3 combined when it comes to being an exploitable POS.

Comment by opsaythepocs 4 hours ago

Yeah, I also got a POC working against a live serve.

The author of the article made a critical mistake in gaining my trust. He said the POC's don't work and told me to run it.

--Which-- POC's, Charlie? Why aren't you giving a full listof what you tried. This isn't reddit, and you're not doxxing or attacking anyone. Post the links. Give sources or shut up.

Comment by joaohaas 2 hours ago

Very weird thing for you to complain about when the writer did list multiple PoCs he tried, and here you are saying there's one that works but you won't share the link.

Comment by hdgvhicv 3 hours ago

Which POC did you get running against a vanilla unmodified php server. Which server, which OS?

Comment by dwedge 3 hours ago

There are two linked in the article

Comment by 4 hours ago

Comment by wavemode 7 hours ago

Article's very vague about how the RCE actually works. They talk about the memory corruption bugs but not how exactly those become RCE.

Comment by glacier9147 4 hours ago

Revealing that before people have had time to update, or it is already being exploited widely just increases the risk that more attacks will happen. I'd be sceptical if we don't get info eventually, but for now, things being vague is expected.

Comment by rectang 9 hours ago

According to "Today's PHP Security Release, and How We're Strengthening PHP Security" discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50182987

* Regarding one CVE, "Remote code execution was also confirmed on PHP-FPM through application-level code paths."

* Regarding the other CVE, "A use-after-free and worker crash were confirmed, and the reporter demonstrated remote code execution against a real-world application running on Apache with mod_php."

Since those exploits exist, I expect that LLMs will duplicate them soon.

Comment by easterncalculus 9 hours ago

Related LiveOverflow video about fake exploits going around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CiZmq2llDg

That said, OP is basically full of shit. This is absolutely exploitable and people are going to just assume the platform and ABI and spray it against the internet, particularly hoping for mod_php.

Comment by 1over137 9 hours ago

>This is absolutely exploitable...

OK, can you share a working one so we can test that our servers are fixed?

Comment by rcxdude 2 hours ago

A PoC exploit failing isn't very strong evidence you're actually safe.

Comment by 7 hours ago

Comment by educar 4 hours ago

Can you share a patch or test program to test the issue?

Comment by noduerme 9 hours ago

Aren't most PHP sites out there running mod_php anyway?

Comment by Ardren 8 hours ago

15 years ago absolutely. Most modern sites will be running php-fpm (or maybe FrankenPHP)

Comment by kijin 5 hours ago

Yeah, I don't think I've touched mod_php ever since Apache 2.4 came up with mod_proxy_fcgi, allowing dead simple integration with php-fpm.

PHP does need to invest more in the built-in web server, though. Last time I checked, they still recommend against using it in production.

All other popular runtimes provide a standards-compliant HTTP daemon that any other HTTP daemon can proxy to, it's just the way things work nowadays. Insisting on FastCGI limits integration with more modern web servers and HTTP-speaking middleware.

Comment by 0x1F8B 9 hours ago

If they're so confident this isn't exploitable this person should stand up a very basic nginx running php-fpm server running in an exploitable version of PHP and invite people to exploit it.

Comment by Maxion 5 hours ago

I ain't paid to find exploits in PHP, but I will be fired if our shit gets hacked. So I'm taking down the servers until there's a patch.

Comment by TheCapeGreek 4 hours ago

There's been a patch since yesterday.

Comment by SOLAR_FIELDS 8 hours ago

I totally agree. We can sit here and posture all day, maybe it might justify our paychecks. Exploit it and show me why it’s fucked. Otherwise it’s just words

As Linus says: talk is cheap; show me the code

Comment by philsquared_ 7 hours ago

Bonus points put cryptocurrency private key on their server as bounty.

Comment by berkes 1 hour ago

It needs only one working exploit to invalidate this post entirely.

Even if there aren't any that work OOTB today, there may be tomorrow. Or in a week. They may improve over time. They may combine other vectors. They will probably not exist on Github but somewhere on the dark web as a .zip you pay for in Monero.

They will combine shodan with fingerprinting and other ways to find "older PHP versions". There will be brute force versions, that just try every home router for insecure NextCloud. And so on.

This is real. This is dangerous. This will be exploited. Because I am sure even after all the noise, (hundreds) of thousands of PHP servers won't be updated for weeks. Many running on a forgotten corner of the web, on homeservers, on a VPS that no-one has access to anymore, in a CI, in a company on the old desktop underneath Jim's desk, on a raspberry-pi everyone totally forgot about.

Comment by silentbob7 40 minutes ago

Just like every other bug, we should patch, but calm down as there seems to be -currently- no evidence for wide rce exploitation in the wild. If that will change this would be new evidence and shall be taken into risk considerations.

Why are you speculating?

Comment by ivolimmen 5 hours ago

I have the feeling that for some time now the CVE scores are insane. A while back we have a security issue with a dependency in Java that had a score of 9 I believe. It had a requirement that the attacker had root access.

Comment by dns_snek 2 hours ago

Do you have the CVE number? That's not unreasonable per se, but it could be bogus as you say. A CVSS (base) score is a measure of intrinsic severity of the vulnerability in isolation which is somewhat unintuitive.

A high severity CVE can have zero impact on your system because the vulnerable code path is unreachable, and a pair of low severity CVEs in your system components/libraries can compound and create a critical vulnerability in your system.

Comment by stickfigure 10 hours ago

> It isn't a Log4J moment.

The difference is that PHP has a long history of vulnerabilities while platforms like Java don't. And as bad as Log4Shell was, it wasn't a problem with the core runtime. It wasn't even a problem with the most popular logging framework at the time.

I wouldn't downplay this.

Comment by bouncycastle 9 hours ago

Core run time vulnerabilities in PHP, the language and runtime itself, are rare. I remember the days when an exploit in the JVM was a daily announcement. To the point where they had to ban java applets from the web.

Comment by stickfigure 8 hours ago

> Core run time vulnerabilities in PHP, the language and runtime itself, are rare.

They may be rare today but they have historically been very common.

> To the point where they had to ban java applets from the web.

Those are not RCEs, they were sandbox violations. Sandboxing untrusted code is hard and really only javascript engines have pulled it off. Java and Dotnet gave up, and that's fine.

PHP's security failures are not from trying something ambitious. They're from generating web content on a server. These are not comparable.

Comment by GuestFAUniverse 7 hours ago

Did they learn not to fix overflows by checking a variable for "> PHP_INT_MAX"? That patch was hilarious. But you might have to meet Perl greybeards to understand the fun the internet made of the PHP core devs after that.

Comment by SXX 7 hours ago

> The difference is that PHP has a long history of vulnerabilities while platforms like Java don't.

Some software written in PHP has a long history like that.

PHP itself mostly dont. Tbh runtime itself has fairly stellar track record on security considering it written in C.

Comment by stickfigure 7 hours ago

This doesn't look like a stellar track record to me.

Year CVE Vulnerability Exploitation prerequisites

2004 CVE-2004-1019 Memory corruption in unserialize() Application processes untrusted serialized data

2006 CVE-2006-4812 Integer overflow in PHP's memory allocator through unserialize() Untrusted serialized data

2007 CVE-2007-0906 Buffer overflows in bundled PHP modules and string handling Application passes attacker-controlled data

2007 CVE-2007-1286 Integer overflow in unserialize() reference counting Untrusted serialized data

2010 CVE-2010-2225 Use-after-free in SplObjectStorage deserialization Untrusted serialized data

2012 CVE-2012-1823 PHP-CGI argument injection Vulnerable CGI deployment

2014 CVE-2014-8142 Use-after-free in PHP's unserialize() implementation Untrusted serialized data

2015 CVE-2015-0231 Use-after-free in PHP's object deserialization Untrusted serialized data

2015 CVE-2015-2787 Another use-after-free in unserialize() Untrusted serialized data

2016 CVE-2016-10160 Memory corruption in PHP's PHAR extension Application processes crafted PHAR archive

2019 CVE-2019-11043 Buffer underflow in PHP-FPM Particular web-server configuration

2024 CVE-2024-4577 PHP-CGI argument injection on Windows Particular Windows CGI configuration

Comment by SXX 1 hour ago

IDK why someone flagged your reply, but basically your list shows that since 2015 there been practically no security issues that can really be exploited in default configuration.

10 years like thid seem pretty stellar for me considering half of internet runs on PHP.

Comment by Insimwytim 10 hours ago

> It wasn't even a problem with the most popular logging framework at the time.

I can't say if it was most popular overall, but it (Log4Shell) was a nightmare for many F500 companies.

Comment by esikich 9 hours ago

Was it actually though? I worked at an MSP at the time and our tools were just flagging the mere existence of the library. It either wasn't being used or wasn't exposed in any meaningful way. Oh a dev happens to have it installed on his laptop? Who cares.

Comment by kgeist 8 hours ago

I remember our infosec person instructing us to verify we don't use log4j in our system written in PHP. Well, we didn't :)

Comment by bunderbunder 10 hours ago

My employer at the time didn’t use log4j, but we were still plenty vulnerable. All sorts of open source packages we used had a transitive dependency on it.

Comment by stickfigure 7 hours ago

Very few opensource packages actually used log4j directly. Libraries generally use some sort of shim like commons-logging or slf4j so they can log into whatever your application chooses as a long sink.

Merely declaring a transitive dependency didn't mean that the code was executing nor did it mean that user input was actually being logged through those libraries.

Log4j v2 (the vulnerable version) just wasn't that common at the time. Most everyone had moved on to Logback, and Log4j v1 (not vulnerable) was still more popular than v2.

Comment by bawolff 9 hours ago

I'd disagree. log4shell was a monster to patch and figure out what is and isn't vulnerable.

upgrading php is much easier.

Comment by tptacek 8 hours ago

It's a weird move for this post to simultaneously line this vulnerability up against Log4Shell (very few serversides are going to measure up to L4S) and insinuate that it's not practically exploitable at all.

If it was just "everyone take a breath, we've been through something worse with Log4Shell", that would make a lot more sense.

Comment by il-b 2 hours ago

Log4g was exploitable from the second it was published

Comment by rcxdude 2 hours ago

Log4J was utterly trivially exploitable across basically all configurations, so in that sense it was worse. But any unauthenticated RCE that's on the default configuration of such a widely deployed piece of software is a good cause for sounding the alarms, even if there isn't a script kiddie exploit that will do all of those versions.

Comment by bakugo 7 hours ago

> The difference is that PHP has a long history of vulnerabilities while platforms like Java don't.

What makes you say that? I know several websites that ran on unpatched PHP 5 versions for over a decade, without a care in the world until now, because there were no known serious vulnerabilities in the interpreter itself.

Comment by antiloper 3 hours ago

There seems to be a group of actors, both in this thread and the one about the PHP release, that try to convince readers that patching existing PHP installations is not that critical.

I think this group has a good reason for not wanting PHP installations to get patched.

Comment by bpbp-mango 1 hour ago

Agreed. Just because no one has shared the exact exploit doesn't make it not exist.

Comment by SyneRyder 3 hours ago

Some of them have Karma numbers around 75 and accounts created in mid September.

Comment by amstan 10 hours ago

On the other hand, my local qwen model (3.8-flash-next) was trying to convince me that the eMudhra CA thing is no big deal since you need to be "positioned correctly" (eg: any wifi network) to be able to MITM, and most of the IOT devices would have patched stuff by now.

Comment by hobofan 5 hours ago

The CA thing is bad, but in practice a lot more high effort to exploit. As a prerequisite the attacker has to be present on the same network, which makes any individual attack a lot more high effort. In contrast for something like PHP2Shell (if exploitable) any PHP instance exposed on the internet can be attacked by anyone from anywhere.

With a MITM, you also mainly breach confidentiality, but this doesn't directly give you an exploit chain to pwn the device (though the many auto-updaters people are using nowadays might be one).

For IOT devices, there are also factors that limit the exposure. The certs are only from 2025/2026, so few devices with them installed are likely present in any given home, and depending on the hardware footprint devices may only come with the few select CAs bundled that they require due to size constraints anyways.

Comment by joaohaas 2 hours ago

Anyone in the connection chain can easily exploit the CA leak. Easiest example is your ISP.

Comment by pizzaiolo 6 hours ago

Ah yes, IoT devices, known for their rock solid security

Comment by sznio 5 hours ago

sounds like you quantized it a bit too hard

Comment by SoftTalker 8 hours ago

> We all deep down know that PHP is insecure

Do we? This was certainly true years ago. But I haven't really thought that modern PHP was any worse than any other scripting language.

Comment by jamesfinlayson 4 hours ago

I think PHP is fine as long as you use a maintained framework, at least in my experience. I've used SlimPHP and Yii2 in the past and never had any security issues. I've worked on a few PHP sites that rolled their own frameworks which in retrospect was pretty iffy. One of them got yearly pen tests and there were never any issues found but the other two probably had some latent issues.

Comment by OrangeDelonge 7 hours ago

I think thats said tongue in cheek.

Comment by eknkc 6 hours ago

Yeah, given that the next bulletpoint is:

- The exploit video had an anime girl in it

Comment by abc42 4 hours ago

That's a false dichotomy. PHP is mainly used in creating web pages, and a scripting language is not a requirement there.

If you compare it with production languages, PHP looks pretty weak.

Comment by lelanthran 2 hours ago

> If you compare it with production languages, PHP looks pretty weak.

8f your comparison excludes all the vulnerabilities they come with, sure.

In practice no one using Node is using it without npm. Same for every other language that has insane transitive dependencies for any non-trivial project.

PHP is no more vulnerable than those languages.

Comment by TheCapeGreek 4 hours ago

"Production languages" is a false dichotomy by implying PHP isn't one.

Comment by apexalpha 1 hour ago

This was absolutely exploitable. The fact 1000 not-working PoCs exist does not invalidate the one that does.

Sure maybe not on a vanilla install but most people don't install Php, they use a pre-made container or a platform using Php under the hood.

Yesterday I simply wasn't confident in the security anymore and the data in my database is important enough to go offline for a few hours.

Comment by layer8 10 hours ago

> So why was everyone so scared?

> Because:

[…]

> 3. The exploit video had an anime girl in it

Lol, somehow I had missed this. Since I had to dig a bit for it, here it is for everyone’s enjoyment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfWZrdzvooc (via https://calif.io/php2shell/#php-5-4-0-rce)

Comment by yunnpp 10 hours ago

What's up with these weird ass videos with the anime girls though?

Comment by TheDong 4 hours ago

That dancing anime girl is from this video, "loli god requiem" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_zad39Uhw

It's a video of an underage-looking ("loli") anime girl insulting the viewer for being a pedophile.

At this point it's mostly used by pedophiles in a sorta tongue-in-cheek way.

Of course, all the best security professionals are either pedos, israelis, furries, or all of the above, so it's not really surprising.

Comment by citruscomputing 9 hours ago

It's a normal video, I don't know what you're talking about.

Comment by 9 hours ago

Comment by sznio 5 hours ago

it's the software engineering tradition

you new here?

Comment by aizk 7 hours ago

Anime fans permeating throughout on the internet? Impossible. Never heard of such a thing.

Comment by rf15 4 hours ago

Culture? In MY internet?

Comment by 5 hours ago

Comment by Genego 10 hours ago

Anime girl level cataclysmic security events definitely don't worry me as much as laughing man (笑い男) cataclysmic events; only then it's when I really start to panic.

Comment by judge2020 9 hours ago

What is this in context of? Is the Laughing Man commonly used in (maybe Japanese) hacks?

All I know of Laughing Man in relation to exploits is from a small niche MMORPG called Toontown Online ( https://youtu.be/sGED1WcJhOM ).

Comment by wocka 9 hours ago

One of the Ghost In The Shell animated series featured that face you saw in the video you linked.

Comment by unsnap_biceps 9 hours ago

It was used in a fairly popular anime Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.

Comment by charlesfries 9 hours ago

For anyone wondering, this is the song https://soundcloud.com/marlonhoffstadt/highforever

Comment by skoll43 9 hours ago

If has anime girl, it means is serious

Comment by ge96 9 hours ago

the dancing anime girl is UI Shigure

Comment by F3nd0 6 hours ago

Sounds like Ul Shigure is a VTuber (youtuber/streamer) and the anime girl is her virtual avatar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ui_Shigure

Comment by gkanai 5 hours ago

Shigure Ui is an illustrator and vtuber. She has a teenage character which is her main character. She also has a young girl character (age 9) which is the one that was put into the exploit explanation video.

Comment by Hamuko 6 hours ago

And more specifically it's the animation from this music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_zad39Uhw

Comment by adiabatichottub 10 hours ago

Also, High Forever track kind of bangs

Comment by nerosk 10 hours ago

the awful edit featuring an underage anime girl only exposes the childish, immature behavior of the people handling this situation, which makes this even more terrifying!

Comment by postalrat 9 hours ago

Since when is a 200+ year old immortal considered underage?

Comment by cosinetau 5 hours ago

In my Slim PHP application container, the only way I could reproduce the PHP2SHELL behavior was by adding `index.php` and `upload.php` from the attached gist to the webroot.

As others have said, there are probably other ways to reproduce it, but it requires a lot of prior knowledge of the app environment, or at least a good guess.

https://gist.github.com/mashiox/462e15b45a4c891b3a843e11b1d2...

Comment by dguido 6 hours ago

Hi, I am the CEO of Trail of Bits (https://www.trailofbits.com). We've had two of our staff independently write working exploits for this flaw. The first one took about 4 hours, start to finish. The second was a similar amount of time spread over the course of a day. We've tested our exploits to work on an unmodified MediaWiki.

tl;dr writing exploits still requires expertise, even when you're being aided by an LLM

Comment by fock 4 hours ago

good to know! are these working generically against fpm with the multipart-progress disabled or against mod_php?

Comment by demibabs 5 hours ago

RCEs?

Comment by chainofdisaster 4 hours ago

I am also curious, but I do want to butt in to disagree with the point you're implying.

We've had red team exercises against our systems multiple times, and the victory always goes to someone who exploits not one thing in isolation, but a sequence of multiple they go around prodding for. It doesn't matter if this exploit goes 0 to 100%, as long as it works half way, I still want to hear of it.

Comment by hobofan 4 hours ago

I think it's a relevant question here.

Parts of the exploit chain that was laid out in the blog posts that claim an RCE were bugs that have previously been reported. Dealing with them in the past in the severity you outline would have possibly prevented the exploit chain.

However, it's specifically the ability to complete this to an RCE what makes or breaks the headlines here.

Comment by TekMol 2 hours ago

There is a strong indicator that this is true:

There is no news about hacked websites due to this vulnerability.

If anyone could ask Claude for an exploit, one would expect a lot of PHP sites to be hacked just for the fun of it, right? Like putting a message on some popular website or something.

Comment by Nemo_bis 1 hour ago

I'm tempted to agree but at the same time we never (?) had news of confirmed data breaches due to log4shell exploits either, so perhaps people are just good at staying quiet when they get attacked.

> Despite the high volume of exploit attempts following the discovery of the Log4Shell vulnerability, reports of major breaches were relatively few. One of the first significant attacks targeted the Belgian Ministry of Defense. Reported on December 12th, just three days after the vulnerability became widely known, the Ministry did not disclose specific details but confirmed the Log4J vulnerability as the attack vector.

https://arxiv.org/html/2501.17760v1#S4

Comment by AtNightWeCode 1 hour ago

Log4shell did not get that bad because it was only the less used version 2 that was effected.

The standard way hackers go about today is data theft and extortion. I think we would have heard about it if was a big problem.

People should off cause keep their servers up to date no matter what. The total panic that was yesterday with people posting all kinds of random AI slop was pathetic.

Comment by silentbob7 2 hours ago

I'm not sure why there are personal attacks on this blogger, his reputation and when the domain was registered. The question remains: is vanilla PHP with its default configuration easily exploitable? What are the prerequisites, and what configuration deviations are required compared to default config in the anime girl video?

Comment by pinevale 11 hours ago

I've seen many posts like this. None of them stood the test of time. Ease is irrelevant because you only need expertise once and then everyone can reuse the result.

It's also not easy to pop an iPhone, but reliable, weaponized exploits are available in trade and governments use them in a plug-and-play way.

Comment by ameliaquining 10 hours ago

The specific controversy here is about the disclosure timeline. Some people allege that the disclosure and patch release of this vulnerability were mishandled; others dispute this. The dispute turns crucially on how available exploits were during the embargo period. Nobody is arguing that the vulnerability doesn't need to be patched at all. (The PHP core team didn't initially treat it with much urgency, but they've acknowledged that this was a mistake.)

Comment by jeroenhd 5 hours ago

I think it's entirely possible that the released exploit and the early released video are independent of each other. The video contains a couple of hints and stack traces, so someone could've used that to pinpoint the problem and write an exploit of their own (or, based on the website it appeared on, had an LLM generate one).

On the other hand, Chainguard did release their patches before the agreed upon time, proving they can't be trusted if you're working on coordinated patch releases. That was an absolute mess.

Comment by athrowaway3z 5 hours ago

> The dispute turns crucially on how available exploits were during the embargo period.

I sure hope thats not true.

All signs indicate that writing a self-replicating exploit that'd flood the internet without warning is possible. All we know is that nobody did.

A lot of websites - especially the ones who made the call to go down first like government / healthcare - do not have the luxury of taking any risk.

Writing this blog post with the "hindsight" of no exploit going viral for several hours after the patches is - let me be frank - complete bullshit; and i dont want this person anywhere near an important system.

If by next _year_ nobody has proven a successful consistent hack, then we can start to doubt the videos. If there is, then all of this has been warranted.

Comment by Gigachad 10 hours ago

Time is the whole point though. Everyone was terrified and shutting their websites down because they believed the exploit would be running wild on the internet in between it hitting git and them being able to update the server.

If it takes a week to come up with a working exploit code, the critical services have time to update.

Comment by anonymous908213 10 hours ago

Time is part of the point, but it is not the whole point. The whole point involves the fact that this impacts two decades worth of PHP versions. Even if it took months to exploit, there is going to be a long, long tail of breaches against ill-maintained legacy sites.

Comment by ameliaquining 10 hours ago

Yes, but that's not really relevant to the controversy over the embargo.

Comment by anonymous908213 10 hours ago

Neither the OP nor any comment in this chain of replies is about the embargo?

Comment by ameliaquining 10 hours ago

The controversy over the embargo is why the post was written and why we're talking about this at all.

Comment by anonymous908213 10 hours ago

Huh, I thought we were talking about this because it's a massive security breach offering approximately unconditional RCE against half of the servers on the open web.

Comment by ameliaquining 7 hours ago

The specific reason for the current degree of consternation, to the point where many websites went down preemptively which didn't happen even with Log4Shell, is that for about half a day there were multiple alleged proofs-of-concept circulating on Twitter while the PHP Foundation refused to release the patch. If that hadn't been the case, we'd still be having a conversation, but a different one.

Comment by anonymous908213 7 hours ago

Suppose hypothetically there was no disclosure period at all. Suppose that at the time the PHP team made the announcement that there was an unmitigable unconditional RCE against ~every version of PHP with advice to take servers offline, they had just been made aware of it themselves, and simply did not have a patch ready yet. The pre-emptive taking of servers offline until a patch was available, the OP blog post that was written, and this comment thread would all still apply the same. Nothing in this thread was in any way related to the embargo period. It is extremely weird that you came into a thread irrelevant to the embargo and told me my comment was irrelevant to the embargo, and then have stuck to your guns arguing this incessantly. The embargo and the severe vulnerability are related. They are not the same thing, and much of the conversation would in fact be exactly the same regardless of the embargo.

Comment by ameliaquining 5 hours ago

There's no need for an embargo before the patch is available, because the core team can just not tell anyone. It's only once there is a patch that the decision has to be made whether to embargo it.

Comment by athrowaway3z 5 hours ago

Time is not the whole point. How are people in this thread this clueless?

Risk is the whole point. The websites going down first were government / healthcare.

Do you expect these websites to take the risk? Risks that you now feel is justified because hindsight seemed to have collapsed the possibility-space?

We can talk about this again next year; if still nobody has demonstrated a working consistent attack that _could_ have pwnd my gov and medical records, then we can reflect on the severity score and the response.

Comment by martinald 10 hours ago

But just because there isn't a working PoC on GitHub doesn't mean there isn't one and things aren't been actively exploited.

If you are a bad actor you probably don't share your PoC around as it means less boxes to hit.

Comment by ameliaquining 10 hours ago

You can never rule out the possibility that someone interested in attacking you has a non-public exploit, but it's dramatically less likely if there aren't already working exploits circulating all over the internet.

Comment by fomine3 9 hours ago

It was true before great LLMs era

Comment by ameliaquining 5 hours ago

I don't think that's very true. Certainly, modern LLMs make it much easier to discover a vulnerability given only limited clues—but if it's easy to find that way, then probably someone will do that and post it for clout. So if no one has, then it probably isn't.

Comment by mrheosuper 10 hours ago

With AI i think it's safe to assume it would only take hours after you give it what/where to look

Comment by nextaccountic 9 hours ago

AI makes developing this exploit faster though

Comment by hannasanarion 10 hours ago

That "if" is load bearing and increasingly flat-out false.

Crowdstrike's average "breakout times", the time gap between a first successful infiltration and maximal exploitation, has gone from days or hours prior to 2024 to minutes or seconds now.

Comment by asddubs 9 hours ago

ease is somewhat relevant initially, since it determines how quickly you have to patch before exploits start popping up. I would be extremely curious to see if anyone has been pwned by this already, especially before the public release of the patches (not that I doubt it, but I heard some people saying they saw attempts in their logs, but not really enough information to tell whether they were understanding their logs correctly. The situation just seems a bit murky and unclear to me).

Comment by rf15 4 hours ago

> Ease is irrelevant because you only need expertise once and then everyone can reuse the result.

Not if your LLM relies on existing code and you collectively create a million repos with hallucinated broken implementations that do not work before a good public exploit exists, which later LLMs rely on. LLMs are self-defeating that way.

Comment by j16sdiz 10 hours ago

I guess the main takeaway is: we (humans? current methodology?) are bad at estimating how urgent a fix is or needs to be.

Comment by Insimwytim 10 hours ago

It's also weird that it seem to has overshadowed certificates incident, which, to me, appears to be of at least the same magnitude of impact.

Comment by Gigachad 10 hours ago

The certificates incident was mitigated by the fact it was revoked within hours so by the time people found out, it was resolved.

Yes there is a long tail of Internet of Shit devices that have a fixed non updated cert store, but these devices are being absolutely ripped to shreds by AI from all angles already.

Comment by Insimwytim 9 hours ago

  Most non-browser TLS clients (so basically everything else, with default settings), things like curl, Python, Node, Go, Java, git, package managers and every script and daemon you've got, do three things that matter here: they trust a CA bundle on disk, they don't check revocation by default, and they don't check CT. So the fact that eMudhra and Sectigo have revoked these intermediates doesn't help them at all. [1]
[1] https://scotthelme.co.uk/eight-bits-of-trust-emudhras-ca-key... ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50177916 )

Comment by mbac32768 6 hours ago

Couldn't this be enforced at the router? Intercept outbound TLS. If the client hello is to a new domain, hold it and start a new outbound connection and see if the server responds with a certificate on the CRL. If so, ban it. Otherwise let the original TLS connection proceed.

Comment by bsharper 6 hours ago

That would work with TLS 1.2, but not TLS 1.3. TLS 1.3 sends the certificate after the session key is derived and symmetric encryption is established.

Comment by yorwba 3 hours ago

That doesn't stop you from asking for the certificate on a separate connection with your own session key, and terminating the original connection if you don't like the certificate.

Comment by cesarb 10 hours ago

It's not just IoT devices. It's also a very very long tail of programs which for some reason have their own copy of the CA certificates list, either because they don't trust the system's one, want to work identically on all platforms, have a severe case of not-invented-here, or all three at the same time (looking at you, Java...)

Comment by jeroenhd 5 hours ago

The certificate incident requires a working MitM of TLS traffic. That isn't easy to pull off and browsers will immediately warn you the second they see someone try that.

The PHP exploit, as presented, runs directly from attacker to server. There's no requirement for an attacker to already be in the network.

Comment by furyofantares 8 hours ago

The only other post on this blog is "Anything connected to the internet is going to get hacked to pieces." I'm not claiming any contradiction but it is funny.

Comment by ameliaquining 5 hours ago

That actually increased my credence that the post is correct, because it indicates that the author isn't just a blind AI skeptic.

Comment by dhruvagoyal 7 hours ago

"Script kiddies (and script adults, who have also switched their brains off)" not something i expected to hear ever but it's so real

Comment by Retr0id 10 hours ago

I predict that this take will age poorly.

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by dijital 4 hours ago

And a newly registered domain only 3 days old:

  whois eliastaylor.com
    Domain Name: ELIASTAYLOR.COM
    Registry Domain ID: 3148982369_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
    Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.porkbun.com
    Registrar URL: http://porkbun.com
    Updated Date: 2026-10-02T19:39:03Z
    Creation Date: 2026-10-02T19:14:35Z
    Registry Expiry Date: 2027-10-02T19:14:35Z
    Registrar: Porkbun LLC
    Registrar IANA ID: 1861

Comment by Moru 3 hours ago

Not to take away from the GP's claims but where in that whois does it say 3 days old? The page has two posts, one is "We are all doomed" and the other is "AI is bad at what it supposedly does", first post created (according to the site itself) just after the domain was registered 20 days ago.

Comment by tgv 3 hours ago

The whois creation date is 2026-10-02, which is 20 days ago. I suppose the parent misinterpreted something.

Comment by QuantumNomad_ 2 hours ago

Probably misread 2026-10-02T19:14:35Z by glancing at it too quickly and thinking it said 2026-10-19. With 19 coming from the clock hour after T.

I think the main point is mostly the same regardless of that though. 3 days ago or 20 days ago it’s a very recently created site.

Comment by stef25 3 hours ago

Creation date ?

Comment by sippingabonedry 3 hours ago

22 - 2 is not 3; did you write the key generation scripts for the eMudhra CA?

Comment by pfych 3 hours ago

It looks to be at least 20 days old, with another blog post on the site

Comment by yreg 4 hours ago

The article should be easy to refute (if it is wrong).

Chainguard broke the embargo being convinced they have the evidence of this being widely exploited already yesterday. Where is it?

Comment by quotemstr 4 hours ago

Everyone has evidence of widespread exploit attempts. I totally believe that there are widespread attempts. Where are the compromises?

Comment by vanviegen 3 hours ago

Why would you do attempts on someone else's server if you haven't been able to exploit a local server yet?

Comment by milkshakes 3 hours ago

what makes you so sure these would be publicized? what incentive does an adversary have to be loud about it?

Comment by whizzter 3 hours ago

I wouldn't be surprised about a timeline like

1: Wiz finds the exploit , begins responsible patching procedure

2: Chainguard,etc gets to know about it, adds some monitoring on top of their patches.

3: OpenAI being happy for the upcoming publicitiy starts an automated run to _count_ vulnerable instances for _marketing_ purposes.

4: Chainguard interprets it as wild exploitation and pulls the trigger early.

Comment by milkshakes 2 hours ago

lol.

> I wouldn't be surprised

yeah i am not surprised you're not surprised. you seem to have already made up your mind. that said, every single guess you have made here is completely incorrect and not based in facts at all.

literally you have no idea what you're talking about! but don't let that stop you from having an opinion

Comment by quotemstr 3 hours ago

Any particular compromise might not be published. But 70% of the internet is vulnerable. Even with a low reporting rate, wouldn't you expect to see something?

Comment by yorwba 2 hours ago

Surely all the websites that had scheduled downtime for the patch are no longer vulnerable? Would be kind of pointless otherwise.

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

> easy to refute

Please keep in mind that Brandolini's law exists, and so does a whole arsenal of stuff like the Gish Gallop.

Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and here, the extraordinary comes from that blogpost's claim, as the developers saying "yes the software we made is actually broken" is not extraordinary.

Comment by sippingabonedry 3 hours ago

> so that they end up with 200 comments on #2 on the HN front page

I'm more curious why the top post in this thread is solely attacking the guy's character and not refuting any of his claims.

> An empty blog by a person that may or may not exist with no contact info.

I'd hate to upset all the 'this guy is Keyser Söze' internet detectives, but you've described 90% of posters here (including yourself).

Comment by stnikolauswagne 3 hours ago

> I'm more curious why the top post in this thread is solely attacking the guy's character and not refuting any of his claims.

I read the blogpost and was left waning on the post actually making strong claims. "The biggest starred PoCs on Github are not viable exploits" does little satisfyingly justify "This vulnerability is not a big deal". The kind of malicious actors who would exploit this vulnerability at scale have no incentive to make their own versions public and without the author showing some serious expertise I see little reason to trust them at their word.

>I'd hate to upset all the 'this guy is Keyser Söze' internet detectives, but you've described 90% of posters here (including yourself).

Exactly, it however does not really apply to the actors warning of the exploit, from what I can tell there is at least some track record there.

Comment by amoss 3 hours ago

Why would the identity of the author relate in any way to the correctness of their claims?

The claims:

* The existing exploits don't work. * Reasoning chains producing an exploit have cheated the test.

If the claims are wrong then rebutting them is easy:

* Ask an LLM to produce a real exploit. * Test it.

Comment by fartfeatures 2 hours ago

Humans use heuristics such as credentials to navigate an overwhelmingly complex world. They are not infallible but they are quick enough and right enough that we reach for them instinctively.

Comment by rf15 4 hours ago

Yes, but the same is true about LLM output. Guess there's actually no way around this than to go look yourself.

Comment by silentbob7 4 hours ago

The question remains: is vanilla PHP with its default configuration easily exploitable? What are the prerequisites, and what configuration deviations are required compared to default config in the anime girl video?

Comment by whizzter 2 hours ago

I'd say yes-ish, the 9.2 rating hints that it's not a straight to-shell exploit, but still serious enough that the step is probably easy enough, imagine the DB connection string or similar leaking through the working memory leak.

The reason it's so bad is because the multipart/form-parsing by the accounts I've read happens- or begins before the PHP code is actually run, ie it's in the initial runtime stage of a request.

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

If core developers say "this is actually bad", don't bargain if a patch is needed. Patch it.

There is no higher authority on "this is actually fucked" other than the people that actually make that very sausage.

Patching it is painful. It needs to be done regardless.

Comment by silentbob7 4 hours ago

Yes, we should all patch like every other bug - but its the CVSS score and the panic which is in question.

Comment by hdgvhicv 3 hours ago

I think I’ve identified every device on my internal networking running php, but I’d love a reliable poc I could poc that I could run before someone starts lateral movements.

If it’s easy to exploit then it should be easy to find a POC

Comment by ferngodfather 4 hours ago

CVSS scores are a bad measure anyway

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

Yeah mentioning that a lot of nonsense has been happening with LLMs is the truth anchor that untruthful writing uses to pass through people's firewalls.

Not too dissimilar to anti-vaxx stuff or that whole other space of these kinds of dysfunctions.

You always need some kind of hook that is correct.

Comment by heliomattress 4 hours ago

they have contact info. look at the first post [0] on the blog, it has their email, zkldi@proton.me

the user "zkldi" is who submitted it to hn also. seems like a real person to me.

[0] https://eliastaylor.com/software-tinderbox/

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

I think we do not share the same standards for "real person".

Or rather, maybe we do, but we might differ when it comes to topics where claims as big as these are made.

Comment by karel-3d 2 hours ago

Yeah it is this guy, trivially easy to find out

https://www.twitch.tv/zkldi/about

https://github.com/zkldi?page=2&tab=repositories

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/User_talk:Zkldi

https://tachi.ac/

edit: unless there is AI that fakes being human since 2021 and has its own Twitch channel in order to post a blog post to Hacker News.

Comment by hypfer 2 hours ago

Let's run with that then, shall we?

> I'm a 21 year old programmer from the UK. In my free time, I play ITG and create rhythm game adjacent stuff.

Is this a good source for "actually, the people are wrong and you shouldn't worry. This is overblown"?

Should that be guiding people's decisions on how to treat this very real and confirmed by the devs and third parties vulnerability?

Comment by karel-3d 2 hours ago

I have no idea! I just react to the claim that this is not a real person. I have no idea if there is a PHP exploit, I have not looked that hard; but it is interesting nobody actually linked one so far, and all the write-ups people link are obviously LLM generated.

But again this is very very simple to refute by actually linking a working PoC.

Comment by hypfer 2 hours ago

You've misread the claim. Which is partially on me, of course, but also not.

The statement was that it's not a real (primarily as in credible, relevant. Actually real also an aspect but not the primary one) person.

There could technically be a human behind it, just like Jia Tan could've been a human. But for judging the input, that is irrelevant and misleading.

The biggest problem reality is facing is that people's consensus operates on "having every voice heard", which is good in a small village, but terrible in a globalized internet.

And thus, if we want to keep "every voice needs to be heard", we need to reclassify "voice" and "real" not just on "has cells".

That's the mental shorthand I operate on, which I should have resolved down fully to make it work with "normal" people's brains. Regrettably.

Comment by vintermann 4 hours ago

At least it wasn't the lighthouse keeper Elias Thorne.

Should be easy enough to verify the central claim that you need to be able to read the password file through some other means to use this exploit.

Comment by pms 2 hours ago

Ad hominem attacks on HN, at the top of a comment thread, just because LLMs were criticized by a human. Welcome to the new age.

Comment by quotemstr 4 hours ago

> And who exactly is Elias Taylor

A human being, presumably. But he could be a dog or a diffusion model and I wouldn't care, because arguments stand on their own. There is no special caste of people who alone have permission to propose ideas.

You advocate critical thinking. Excellent. Can you critically evaluate "Elias Taylor"'s argument?

Comment by lwhi 4 hours ago

For all we know, Elias Taylor has been fabricated in order to remove the sense of urgency from as many sysadmins and devops as possible.

Comment by arc-in-space 4 hours ago

I literally know them in person. It's a guy. They have a signal and an email right there, you can message them and talk it's not that deep

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

Can you tell them that they're acting recklessly here then?

Comment by CER10TY 3 hours ago

Are they, though? I seriously doubt some sysadmin is going to look at this and say "Maintainers said to patch, but clearly _this guy_ knows better, so I won't."

Besides, he's got a point. The initial PoC that kept popping up on Mastodon (the ones he linked in the post as well) simply didn't work. One of them even posted an updated exploit later that still didn't work, but supposedly meant the vulnerability went from CVSS 10 to CVSS 4.

Comment by lwhi 3 hours ago

I know someone who hacked his own site using the exploit and managed to obtain a database dump.

Comment by lwhi 3 hours ago

Well, tell him from me, he'll probably regret writing the article when he reaches his thirties.

Comment by hypfer 4 hours ago

Which, if true, would at least be kinda funny and would hit institutions that deserve it for having failed to hire trustworthy people that aren't susceptible to that.

So that's a silver lining I guess.

Whoever gets pwned due to this might get naturally out-selected. The system works!!11 Thank you darwin.

Comment by quotemstr 4 hours ago

If Satan himself proves a theorem, is it nevertheless a true theorem? Claims are either true or they are false. There is no such thing as an evil truth. Where are the breaches?

Comment by lwhi 4 hours ago

But don't you understand? The aim wasn't to prevent the breaches that would inevitably happen on day one; it was to prevent the breaches that would happen after that fact. Without mobilising everyone and getting people to patch through an event, we'd be in a far worse position.

The greatest trick that Devil performed was convincing people that he didn't exist, right?

Comment by aaron695 3 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by pier25 7 hours ago

Maybe the author does have a point. There are millions of PHP websites and do we know of any that was pwned?

Comment by decidu0us9034 4 hours ago

Okay finally some sense. I felt like I was going insane seeing the freakout over this. From people who would care but a fraction if there weren't some AI angle.

Comment by letmevoteplease 7 hours ago

Wiz: "These vulnerabilities include memory disclosure and unauthenticated remote code execution in PHP itself, independent of the application running on top of it"[1]

Calif: "the available exploitation paths depend on the PHP version and SAPI but are always exploitable under default configurations" ... "This results in RCE against arbitrary PHP scripts on Apache mod_php and PHP >= 5.4.0."[2]

PHP Foundation: "full remote code execution was demonstrated with default settings."[3]

Unless all of these organizations are lying, the exploit can work against a default PHP installation running a Hello World script.

[1] https://www.wiz.io/blog/php2shell-php-rce

[2] https://calif.io/php2shell/

[3] https://thephp.foundation/blog/2026/10/21/todays-php-securit...

Comment by loire280 7 hours ago

The author isn't disputing that these organizations have developed working exploits, they're saying that the exploit is difficult enough to achieve that, as far as they can tell, nobody has publicly released a working exploit except for vibe coders whose exploits rely on insane misconfigurations on the server.

With previous showstopper security bugs, once you knew the vulnerability existed the exploit was immediately obvious.

Comment by malfist 7 hours ago

At least with the PHP one they caveat this with "under the right conditions" which judging by what we know now, the right conditions are you've already exploited the server with a LFI

Comment by machiaweliczny 1 hour ago

I guess motivated state actors might still find a way to cause issues

Comment by rklaehn 5 hours ago

I think this is way overthinking it. It's PHP. Even 2, 3 years ago before usable LLMs, if somebody had told me there is a remote execution vulnerability in php I would have found it completely plausible.

Comment by richardbarosky 10 hours ago

What kind of pisses me off was that there were kind of two sides of the continuum.

You've got the detailed technical writeup on one end in the patches themselves, and on the other end you've essentially got the AI and security companies both together (php2shell) and independently with their highly polished microsites and blog posts with attractive infographics and stylized pitch deck looking images.

Every publication on the other side of the detailed technical writeup in the patches themselves wanted to make it into a huge fucking marketing stunt first and foremost, providing absolutely zero added practical benefit or value.

https://www.php2shell.com/

https://patchtheplanet.org/

https://www.wiz.io/blog/php2shell-php-rce

https://calif.io/php2shell/

Comment by anonymous908213 10 hours ago

People mistake OpenAI and Anthropic for AI companies, but they are in fact primarily in the business of marketing, and business is good.

Comment by ameliaquining 10 hours ago

Every business is in the business of marketing, that's a meaningless distinction.

Comment by 10 hours ago

Comment by taikahessu 8 hours ago

There's no ai in mrketng.

Comment by commandersaki 10 hours ago

My take:

I have had this take but for things like exploiting with a DRAM interposer ala Battering RAM. They say it's a low cost attack, but the amount of obstacles you need to overcome (including having root on the system and physical access) is intractable to virtually everyone, and a nation state wouldn't go to that kind of gymnastics when it is more than likely there is a quicker and easier way in.

But this? I doubt any high value targets will be exploited in the wild since news travelled fast and from what I can see pretty much most took preventative action. Looks like pretty much everyone heeded the warning and suggestions. It'll mostly be a nothing burger like Heartbleed. There'll be of course low hanging fruit of unpatched servers out there, but anything of importance would have already had active maintenance and patching.

Now that Calif has released the details, I'm sure there'll be a contingent that can actively and easily exploit this, either now or very soon, with or without the guidance of LLMs.

But yeah if someone said Battering RAM, I would say fuggedabout it, but if someone said PHP vulnerability with a CVE of 9.2, I would say patch it ASAP or bring the servers down until you can.

Comment by zer00eyz 9 hours ago

> but anything of importance would have already had active maintenance and patching

Mostly because people either "did it" or yelled long enough and loud enough that it "got done". There is a saying about horses and water, but some people needed to be dragged, kicking and screaming and have their faces shoved in the well.

When headlines like "there wasn't an easy exploit" come out I have burned a lot of good will, on what people will perceive as "nothing burger". The security space has a knack for making a complete mockery of itself and then wondering why no one seems to give a fuck.

"I'm getting too old for this shit" really does apply to today.

Comment by smurf9852 4 hours ago

He says it isn't an easy exploit but never explains why it isn't an easy exploit?!

Comment by reflexe 7 hours ago

Sorry but this post makes zero sense.

Many apps (eg chrome) frequently fix bugs that are actively exploited in the wild yet have no public weaponized chain (sometimes for months).

The fact that there is no fully public weaponized chain does not mean it does not exist or that this bug is not as scary. It only means that it is not as trivial to exploit as log4shell/shellshock/etc.

According to cloudflare [1], it is being exploited in the wild.

[1] https://x.com/eastdakota/status/2113079352682570051

Comment by joecot 7 hours ago

It's like y2k. Yeah, there isn't much of a problem currently. We're patching before it becomes a problem. That's not Bot Who Cried Wolf*, that's responsible security. You don't have to wait for a YouTube tutorial on how to do it before it's something to urgently patch.

*My phone autocorrected to that and I'm keeping it.

Comment by hdgvhicv 2 hours ago

The panic yesterday was “shut down now until the patch comes out as it’s already being exploited”

Where are the mass successful exploits? Why is this different to any other patch?

Comment by necovek 4 hours ago

Can you explain how you got from "attempts to exploit it" to "exploited in the wild"?

Comment by JereCinkan 4 hours ago

"Luckily, the window didn't break, which means the thief never existed"

Comment by bob1029 4 hours ago

> It's been 10 hours since this vulnerability has been posted, and half the software world is looking at it, and lord knows 100,000 people have got their "superintelligence" on the case.

This is the most compelling argument presented. If this PHP vulnerability were actually so bad, we'd be probably be seeing some kind of widespread impact by now. If every potential target requires a second coincidental, target-specific vulnerability I think we should probably call off the search party.

The alternative way to describe this situation is "defense in depth". We've located a very thick part of the ship hull that we could technically drill through if we had enough time and money to do so, but this would not scale up in any meaningful way. What you can do to a vessel in dry dock vs on the open seas are two wildly different universes. Vulnerabilities located under pristine lab conditions or within the context window of a clanker do not bring me much concern.

Comment by squidlib 10 hours ago

https://aws.amazon.com/security/security-bulletins/2026-143-...??

Comment by 10 hours ago

Comment by JensenTorp 3 hours ago

Where are the hacked websites? That is the litmus test. I'm looking around and I see... nothing?

Comment by SyneRyder 3 hours ago

Karma 4.

Comment by sam_lowry_ 3 hours ago

I have more karma, and I wonder where are the hacked websites as well.

Comment by SyneRyder 2 hours ago

That's cool, I can answer this more kindly then.

If you're looking for obvious site defacements, something loudly compromised... that's usually not the game here. What is more likely is persistent covert shell access, hiding underneath. Accessible only to those who know the way in, doesn't draw attention to itself so it can persist for a long time before being used... a bit like the 11 month old account you've referenced here, that gets used to comment on this thread.

Sites with shell access become useful as part of botnets, for DDoS attacks. Setting up VPNs to provide lateral movement across to other websites. Why blow your cover by announcing your presence? A lot more damage is done in stealth.

I'm not in cybersecurity, but if you hunt around you'll find enough info about sites getting caught up in this.

Comment by exfalso 2 hours ago

Because clearly when you hack and rootkit a box, the first thing you do is announce it to the public

Comment by xmcqdpt2 49 minutes ago

The exploit requires OOM, no? Half-decent observability should detect it easily.

Comment by chinathrow 5 hours ago

Not easy, but there are some. That's enough.

Comment by yamanahlawat 8 hours ago

>> There's something important to be said here about how many people have Claude/GPT make design decisions for them, and how AI is the primary decision maker in the world right now.

I suppose majority of the them now...

Comment by 7 hours ago

Comment by tommica 4 hours ago

I fell for the fear mongering, which annoys me.

It was some good drama, and honestly I didn't even know LLM was involved so heavily in it. But damn annoying that people blindly believed LLMs and I blindly believed those people.

Comment by 10 hours ago

Comment by shevy-java 2 hours ago

Finally the web-services I needed are back, but boy was this annoying. I lost some time since things got pushed back - all because PHP was not written with security in mind. Yes, features matter too, ease of use, functionality but .... I don't know. I think you need to also put security on the same level of scrutiny; taking control over servers is a huge glaring issue. That simply should not be possible.

Comment by Tadpole9181 10 hours ago

> So why was everyone so scared?

I think this section misses the mark.

The biggest problem is that for a good 12 hours nobody knew what was going on. All we knew was there is a critical vulnerability affecting all of us that allows RCE somehow and we have to have vulnerable servers open for potentially even longer.

Everyone who knew was being hush hush, only chiming in to say "nah, those workarounds don't work, you're fucked".

So when people started spreading rumors of PoC or when the Cloud flare CTO posted that they were actively seeing exploit traffic - what are we supposed to do?

We aren't sitting there trying to PoC with Claude - we're subscribing to a bunch of news feeds and twitter accounts while we try to prepare for the patch and close down what we can. We're calling executives saying "hey, how much money do we lose by being offline for 6 hours?"

So even if this isn't as easily exploitable as first believed, no one could have known that, because those with the ability to calm us down were seemingly choosing to stoke the fires.

This is (IMO) a failure of the potentially outdated disclosure system that's supposed to protect us. And at the very least a trial run of how the world may react next time, if it really is that bad.

Comment by thomasfromcdnjs 10 hours ago

Yeah, I suggested to take down the app someone between seeing the Gina (core) comment (saying php.ini etc changes won't do anything) and after seeing the Cloudflare CTO tweet.

Comment by fwlr 9 hours ago

IMO it is a little bit silly to describe “a system that works well until it intersects with a trillion dollar company’s PR campaign” as an outdated failure.

Comment by malfist 8 hours ago

Or perhaps, trillion dollar companies should be more responsible. Either because they fear regulation that will force them to be responsible, or because there is regulation that will make the responsible.

Comment by fwlr 7 hours ago

I agree. At present I do not see any set of incentives, meta-incentives, etc., that are extant, or even rigorously imaginable[0], that will lead to such a state of affairs.

0: credit to Xenosystems for this excellent phrase

Comment by Celeo 10 hours ago

Very well said. Even for non-sensitive stuff that I was told was "super vulnerable", I didn't know if this was a full, actual RCE - some places said yes, others no. Did I need to take down everything running PHP? Just the apps dealing with data I didn't want leaked? Etc.

The rather long delay in getting official Docker images didn't help; we were told "patch now!!1!!" but that apparently meant building from source.

Comment by lgl 10 hours ago

Great reply, this hits the nail in the head and is pretty much exactly how I spent my day. Just reading, waiting and stressing while being essentially in the dark about the whole thing.

I'm assuming the next few days will probably confirm if this was mostly FUD or not.

Comment by lwhi 4 hours ago

I'm waking up in the UK and thinking about the incident in the cold light of a new day, and things actually seem far worse to me.

What about our routers? What about Home Assistant? What about IoT?

Vulnerabilities are going to surround us, many of which will never ever be patched.

We may well be fucked.

Comment by venzaspa 1 hour ago

That has been the reality for your whole digital existence and will continue long into the future. We can only do the best we can.

Comment by lwhi 33 minutes ago

True, but I imagine there will eventually be a tipping point.

Comment by lincon127 3 hours ago

Makes sense

Comment by 9 hours ago

Comment by tamimio 9 hours ago

>script kiddie

Get on time, pa, they are called LLM kiddie now

Comment by 0xbadcafebee 9 hours ago

RCE is incredibly dangerous not because it lets you execute arbitrary code, but because it lets you execute some code. Code you're not supposed to execute. As soon as someone can do that, all they have to do is probe until they find something to chain.

Almost every system on the internet has some local code you can chain to gain root, or a way to put some in place. It gets worse when it affects legacy systems, because they're the bastard stepchild of security. RCE on a box that hasn't been patched since Obama's first term is what little blackhats' dreams are made of. And developers are way too lazy to intentionally design their apps into different privilege domains to protect against chaining. Unless your app runs chroot() (is my neckbeard showing?) or in a container with nothing but a Go binary, somebody can LFI it.

A crack in the door is plenty of space to get a crowbar in (especially with interpreted languages).

Comment by SoftTalker 8 hours ago

But the author isn't saying that this isn't a crack in the door. He says it is. It's just not a wide open door.

Comment by abootstrapper 6 hours ago

Reminds me of how Y2K was a "nothing burger," because of the effort that was put into making that so.

Comment by bshalom 4 hours ago

"The exploit video had an anime girl in it"

Comment by lifeisloving 5 hours ago

I just like to imagine the japanese PM being woken up in the middle of the night with an assistant holding a laptop, they open it and they watch the anime girl dancing around with that techno song in the background and start panicking.

Comment by nalekberov 2 hours ago

Fear-mongering as a Service.

Comment by lifeisloving 6 hours ago

The dancing anime girl was the best part of all this lk.

Comment by gkanai 5 hours ago

The original video from where the dancing girl was taken from (she's a vtuber, not in an anime) has 148 million views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_zad39Uhw

Comment by lifeisloving 4 hours ago

148 mil views is crazy. It goes hard with that techno and glitch effect on that PoC.

Comment by cindyllm 6 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by ajross 10 hours ago

It's a digression, but FTA:

> When I think about "we're very fucked" CVE10s on the Internet, I think of the following vulnerabilities:

Which is IMHO a really good list. It's also, I think, important to note that every single one of the four items is not at all a memory safety bug. They're all logic, at various levels of an interpretation stack.

I think a lot of folks with their heads down in the security world might have expected the opposite. As is often the case in engineering, the smartest people end up obsessing over solving the less important parts of the problem.

Comment by theamk 10 hours ago

I think Heartbleed is close enough to memory safety to count. It was caused by memory allocator returning uninitialized memory and every memory safe language I know about does not allow this in best-practice code.

(And sure, there are escape hatches - like Python has "recv_into" that could be used to implement heartbleed if you are really inclined to - but this would not be a realistic python program. In python, even with buffer reuse, you'd be using memoryview or similar that can't have a heartbleed problem)

Comment by phyzome 10 hours ago

Heartbleed was a buffer overread. Sounds like a memory safety bug... is it not?

Comment by insanitybit 10 hours ago

It was.

Comment by tptacek 10 hours ago

Serverside memory corruption is annoying to get working. As a dominant metagame strategy for attackers, it's much more impactful on the clientside.

(I'm not cosigning the analysis in this blog post. I think "I haven't seen a PoC I could get working" is not the evidence this author seems to think it is.)

Comment by insanitybit 10 hours ago

The vast majority of web services are not written in memory unsafe languages so this is not surprising.

One of the exceptions (with regards to web facing attack surface in a memory unsafe language) is that people still use OpenSSL, which has a terrible history of memory unsafety, including the cited heartbleed.

Comment by redox99 10 hours ago

Huh? Heartbleed is literaly memory safety (buffer over read)

Comment by edf13 2 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by elmer2 11 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by cookiengineer 10 hours ago

[removed]

Comment by lukev 10 hours ago

If anything, claiming that this vulnerability has been known and unpatched for 22 years supports the author's point: clearly it's not that easy to actually use.

Comment by edoceo 10 hours ago

WAS not easy, now it's much easier.

Comment by stuffoverflow 10 hours ago

Glad to be proven wrong but as far as I can see there are no reports of it currently being exploited in the wild at the scale you are implying. It genuinely takes a lot of time to weaponize even with the assistance of frontier LLM models and it is way more difficult when you don't control the server.

I largely agree with the author and it is a common annoyance in cyber security discussions where people make strong claims but have nothing to back it up with.

Comment by asddubs 10 hours ago

Do you have any links to a working PoC that appeared before the details were released? I'm seeing a lot of conflicting info, and I'm not really sure what to think. People saying they were seeing people trying to exploit this hours ahead of the patch release on their servers, yet no one who seemingly actually got pwned by it (were people just misreading their logs?)

Comment by 10 hours ago

Comment by nprateem 9 hours ago

Clickbait bullshit from Internet nobodies.

https://www.ft.com/content/245778d9-597b-492d-b5b6-a2967c77e...

Comment by jadar 9 hours ago

I am so annoyed… I am trying to verify the claims of this article with my friend Claude but daddy Dario won’t let me because “cyber”. I pointed it at this article and a PoC [1] I found on DuckDuckGo. We live in a stupid world. I can’t run it right now so I am trying to figure out if it’s serious.

[1] https://github.com/eness/php2shell-CVE-2026-109618-CVE-2026-...

Comment by zazibar 1 hour ago

How about trying to verify the claims with your own brain? It seems you missed the main point of the article.

Comment by abofh 8 hours ago

When they confuse the CA issue and the PHP issue in the opening paragraph, I have a hard time trusting their analysis

Comment by Dylan16807 8 hours ago

"I know, I know. It's all you're hearing about. That, and the number 4."

Doesn't look like confusion to me.

Comment by imwally 8 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by noduerme 9 hours ago

OP seems to be implying that there's no way the UAF bug could be used to run arbitrary code with higher privileges than PHP itself, on a vanilla installation. I couldn't divine that from reading the CVE. Is that true...? Is that why you'd need PHP to exec an existing file or something? Or is that assumption just based on the fact that the PoCs so far rely on nerfing PHP? If the latter, it's a bit ironic to complain about everyone's judgment skewing toward Claude's while using Claude-generated code not doing it as circumstantial evidence that such a thing can't be done.

I'm no expert on UAF exploits. I guess one thing I'm wondering is whether the pointer to "freed" memory in this case is still pointing to memory reserved by the system for a PHP process, or if it's some address that's truly free and could be picked up by another process.

Comment by minitech 9 hours ago

> or if it's some address that's truly free and could be picked up by another process

This isn’t a thing; virtual memory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory) is very old, and Linux has never not used it. It takes a separate vulnerability (a “local privilege escalation”) to do what you’re getting at. (However, those are plentiful, and arbitrary malicious code with PHP process privileges is often already catastrophic for a web service.)

That said,

> OP seems to be implying that there's no way the UAF bug could be used to run arbitrary code with higher privileges than PHP itself

No, nowhere does the article imply that at all.

Comment by noduerme 8 hours ago

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I don't totally understand.

And yeah, obviously it's still dangerous to have arbitrary code running with PHP's privileges.

Just one thing: With mod_php, those httpd processes are spun up on demand. After that the memory is released to the system, right? There's no master Apache webserver process holding all those addresses.

Just for clarity, I took the OP's point to be that the only way this could be used to escalate privileges would be if there were existing scripts on the server with credentials that PHP itself could be made to exec() ...but... if you know a process is going to be spun down and no longer holds a pointer to the memory you're writing to, couldn't you theoretically write something that might be picked up by the next process? Or is that always formatted by the next process' vm?

Appreciate your patience, I'm not a low level coder.

Comment by minitech 7 hours ago

It’d be redundant for me to write up the whole explanation here, but the short version is that every process has its own memory space, provided in a clean state by the OS, that other processes can’t read from or write to, regardless of pointer values. The same pointer value in two processes doesn’t refer to the same memory unless there’s specific coordination. Keywords you can use to read more about the long version on previous Wikipedia link.

> Or is that always formatted by the next process' vm?

So yes, that’s sort of how it is.

Comment by xmcqdpt2 31 minutes ago

You can read and write to other processes memory addresses on Linux using /proc/mem,

https://renenyffenegger.ch/notes/Linux/memory/read-write-ano...

You need the same access as you would for connecting gdb, so generally need to be running in the same uid, or be root.

Comment by theboblong 3 hours ago

PHP often has access to a DB API in order to run the site; that's where the fun starts even if you are restricted to PHP's access level.