Hacker News

points by jacquesm 3 days ago | 0 comments

This doesn't really have anything to do with GLM-5.3. This is what happens when you share models between users and don't do your bookkeeping properly, the actual model doesn't matter. What it shows is that there isn't enough isolation between the user sessions and that memory can overlap when that should never be possible.

This is an SGLANG and a Cloudflare bug long before it is a Z.AI model bug, I don't see what they could have done about it. Cloudflare should own it instead of naming other (imo innocent) parties in the title.

[–] kflansburg 3 days ago

At no point do we claim that it is a bug with the model. We specifically outline how it was a mis-configuration on Cloudflare's part and a bug in SGLang. We name the model in the title because our customers need to know which of our endpoints was affected. In fact, we say "the GLM-5.3 Workers AI model", not "GLM-5.3".

[–] jacquesm 3 days ago

Not buying that. You explicitly mention the model name in the title the 'GLM 5.3 workers AI model' suggests it is something specific to GLM 5.3 which it is not. You mention Sglang and are all surprised that it didn't throw an error. But the issue was yours all along.

[–] margalabargala 3 days ago

Yeah, their title is absolutely implying a GLM bug to anyone who doesn't read it super closely.

There's a huge amount of unnecessary extraneous details in the headline that distract from "this is a Cloudflare bug".

[–] literallyroy 3 days ago

Not sure if the title was edited but as is it is very clear to me this is a bug on their side and I have no idea how a technically literate person (someone using the model via cloudflare?) who would misinterpret given the reference to the cache.

[–] infecto 2 days ago

The title is poorly worded. I can easily see how it can be conflated in passing. Naming the model is silly in the title. It should be mentioned in the article but as read the title suggests it’s something related to this model.

[–] XYen0n 3 days ago

I have read this post, and it appears that this is indeed an issue specific to the GLM 5.3 model on their platform. I am unsure whether this is because only GLM 5.3 uses SGLang or because only its configuration is problematic.

[–] paimapi 2 days ago

Did we read different articles? None of the issues they brought up (architecture splitting, memory transport, Cloudflare's misconfigured context window provisioning, the SGLang state leak, lack of client error provisioning) are model related. These all exist at the layer of the harness (ie Cloudflare's configuration).

A better title would be "Cross-request KV cache exposure in Cloudflare provisioned GLM-5.3 Workers AI model" because it narrows culpability. Just posting it on the Cloudflare blog isn't enough for that in the age of AI and SEO data-scrapes and it'd be surprising to me if the authors didn't know that.

[–] XYen0n 1 day ago

The issue is not with this model; rather, it affects only this model.

[–] fg137 2 days ago

They could have removed GLM 5.3 from the title, and the title and the body would still make perfect sense.

[–] neuronexmachina 2 days ago

I think it's in the title because it's also doing double-duty of informing customers that only usage of the GLM-5.3 model was potentially impacted. I agree that it's so what confusing, though.

[–] robrenaud 3 days ago

I was surprised in reading the article that it had nothing to do with the contents of the model. It could have been any model capable of 1M context that triggered this bug/misconfig on Cloudflare/SGLangs side. The title is extremely misleading.

[–] nijave 2 days ago

Changing "model" to "endpoint" might help since it's the endpoint, not the model

[–] anramon 2 days ago

> We name the model in the title because our customers need to know which of our endpoints was affected

Then you would used "endpoint" instead of "model". In fact, there's actually zero reasons to put any model or endpoint in the title if the bug is yours alone.

[–] infamouscow 2 days ago

You should change the title.

Most people will read this headline and assume Cloudflare is intentionally trying to squash open-weight models. Given how superfluous the model is to the content, it's easy to believe that narrative.

If that wasn't your intent, you really ought to change the title ASAP. Time is ticking before tech journalists and social media decide to run with that narrative and make your public relations department sad.

[–] fg137 2 days ago

What's the point of even mentioning GLM-5.3? That's a detail that only belongs in the body.

Did you ever given any thought about how confusing the title may be?

Did AI write this title and you just use it without ever wondering if it makes sense at all?

[–] asdfsa32 3 days ago

"Cross-request KV cache exposure in X model".

Which part of that is not claiming the exposure is in X model? Cloudflare is stopping to be cool, this is the start. I guess, cf is now big enough for enshitification to start.

[–] nullc 3 days ago

Then remove GLM-5.3 from the title.

[–] fg137 2 days ago

Not what I am seeing. not sure if there is A/B testing here.

[–] jarym 3 days ago

Their AI won’t let them

[–] srdjanr 3 days ago

To me it's obvious that anything related to caching has little to do with the model itself. And it's nice to know from the title that you could only be affected if you used this model.

[–] embedding-shape 2 days ago

It took me until "We have remediated the issue" to realize Cloudflare is talking about an issue they have in their infrastructure, up until that point they're not making that clear at all, and seems to point towards something else, unless you of course already are aware of what exact names Cloudflare uses for their products...

[–] nijave 2 days ago

It does have to do with GLM-5.3 but you're correct it doesn't have anything to do with the model.

It effects the _endpoint serving GLM-5.3_

I'm not sure how else you'd identify the GLM-5.3 serving endpoint without naming GLM-5.3.

That said, having the word "model" in the title is misleading imo

[–] aliasxneo 3 days ago

It seems like you're trying to imply this was an intentional bias due to the nationality of the model authors. But the first sentence of the article is:

"On September 8, 2026, we were alerted by a security researcher, Gadi Evron from Knostic, to a tenant isolation issue affecting the GLM-5.3 Workers AI model (@cf/zai-org/glm-5.3) starting on August 27, 2026."

Meaning the issue was a cache exposure with the GLM-5.3 Workers AI model. If the title was, "Cache exposure issue with GLM-5.3," I would agree it's ambiguous and maybe intentionally harmful. But it literally says, "Workers AI model" which is clearly a Cloudflare product.

[–] jacquesm 3 days ago

I did not mention anybody's nationality, nor did I imply that that was important.

Downthread I suggested "Cloudflare configuration error leaked data between user sessions" which I think is far better. You could improve on it further: "Cloudflare AI worker configuration error leaked data between user sessions". But this could have happened with any model.

[–] weird-eye-issue 3 days ago

Why are you bringing up people's nationalities? This seems incredibly inappropriate

[–] aliasxneo 2 days ago

Probably because there's an on-going conspiracy that's been all over HN that these large corporations are on a smear campaign against Chinese models.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago

You're the one perpetuating that.

[–] aliasxneo 2 days ago

Yes, because debunking something is equivalent to perpetuating it. Can't imply someone might be racist because then you perpetuate racism. That literally makes no sense lol.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago

You can't debunk that which isn't said.

[–] aliasxneo 2 days ago

It has been said, ad naesuem, all over HN for weeks now. I pegged the OP wrong.

[–] weird-eye-issue 2 days ago

You are a weirdo just making things up

[–] aliasxneo 2 days ago

What a quaint rebuttal.