Thread

1. Almondsetat · 1789988787 · focus · HN ↗

   I have a chinese IP camera. From superficial research I know it has some CVEs to take control of it. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical knowledge to perform an attack and run some software to extend the camera's functionalities. No model from a provider accepts my RE and hacking requests, so these abliterated ones have been vital to reclaim possession over my stuff

   1. matheusmoreira · 1789993218 · focus · HN ↗

      These "safeguards" are actively contributing to computer insecurity at this point.

      1. 0xbadcafebee · 1790009750 · focus · HN ↗

         Agreed. Attackers use any means (inc. abliteration, fine-tuned security models, etc) to find exploits and only have to be successful once. Defenders don't have the same time and motivation, so neutered models put defenders at a disadvantage.
      2. illiac786 · 1790018712 · focus · HN ↗

         I mean, the argument could be made that if it wasn’t for these safeguards, everyone and your dog would be hacking the GPs camera.

         I do agree the safeguards are only there out of liability concerns, nothing more.

         But maybe it would be worse without them.

         1. includenotfound · 1790028968 · focus · HN ↗

            That's honestly nonsense. Kimi K3, GLM-5.3, and Qwen3.8-Max will happily hack anything you ask them to. These are near frontier models and are incredibly competent. Try them out yourself, you'll see.

            I've been using them to test my infra/devices as well as reverse engineering.

            Not giving legitimate people cyberdefense capabilities with the safety excuse is irresponsible

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.