Hacker News

points by klhs 20 hours ago | 0 comments

How could they possibly give this a "won't fix" if it can do what is reported here?

The "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Can it do what it claims to do? LLMs are always hallucinating that they've found the most severe bug in software history.

[–] klhs 17 hours ago

Good point, I don't know! That's why I formulated it this way. Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is, with security relevant things it might do no harm to be a bit more credulous when it comes to initial reports. (In theory, no idea how to best handle the growing flood of LLM generated stuff. Pointing LLMs at each other doesn't seem great.)

[–] dspillett 17 hours ago

> LLMs are always hallucinating that they've found the most severe bug in software history.

That is a function of the training data/method, like many of AI's problems. This doesn't stop it being a problem of course, but it shouldn't be a surprise.

Big bugs, like heartbleed, over the years have had breathy websites going over how serious the problem is because the problem was that serious, so the models associate that sort of wording with bug reports. Less serious bugs don't get the same excited treatment, repeated in many many places, so more measured descriptions figure in the training data relatively less.

[–] grapheneos 4 hours ago

Google committed a fix on June 15th and it was shipped in the security preview patches in mid-July. GrapheneOS shipped it in our security preview releases in July. It's in the upcoming November security bulletin but a patch was pushed to AOSP in October:

https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/opt/tel...

It's assigned CVE-2026-58882 and a Critical severity in the November 2026 Android Security Bulletin. We've had it listed as one of the patches included in our security preview releases since our 2026072901 release which you can see in the release notes:

https://grapheneos.org/releases#2026072900

Google mishandled the issue report. There was likely an internal miscommunication and they handled the report incorrectly. It's possible the issue was already filed internally and they meant to close it as a duplicate instead of WONTFIX. Closing it at all may have been an error.

[–] paxy 17 hours ago

Why are you believing an entirely Claude generated webpage?

[–] klhs 8 hours ago

My previous question does not indicate more belief than that it might be true, so I can't answer you there. Should I adopt the belief any information put into words by an LLM is wrong? I don't think it would do me any good. I wish people would stop giving over their writing (or other things) completely to LLMs too, but I can't make them.

[–] MarkBlah 12 hours ago

A wordpress page would be more believable, right?

[–] MarkBlah 20 hours ago

mind boggles, issue is they're swamped with AI slop and high number of findings, they're using AI assistance operated by a 3rd party to handle researcher submissions so many legitimate findings slip through the cracks.

[–] luca020400 17 hours ago

As far as I can tell the next ASB will fix this issue... maybe they simply forgot to tell you :/

EDIT: actually already fixed in https://review.lineageos.org/c/LineageOS/android_frameworks_...

There's yet another PDU fixup that stems from negative index

[–] klhs 19 hours ago

That's unfortunate. They need to do some kind of triage then, I hope this doesn't mean that they're constantly busy now with equally bad or worse bugs, but I guess it wouldn't be too surprising.

[–] j16sdiz 18 hours ago

They triaged them - that's why it gets wontfix.

False negative? I honestly don't know what we can do about it. If this is a real issue, maybe another llm will rediscover it and it eventually will get triaged right?

[–] klhs 17 hours ago

True, I should have written they misclassified it, should it work as advertised. If Google knows something that makes it not an issue, hopefully they'll let us know.

[–] MarkBlah 12 hours ago

I’m certain others have found the same bug, I’d like an answer too, hence the post.

[–] coldfloor 18 hours ago

Ironic comment from someone who literally just submitted an AI slop report and went so far as to give it a website and cutsey name to attempt to feign legitimacy and skill behind the "researcher."