AI usefulness in cyber defense

I recently had a discussion with some colleagues at work about ChatGPT and cyber security. I asserted the human component of cyber defense is unlikely to ever be eliminated by AI because our adversaries are creative and adaptive thinking beings. But AI will be able to write code which can work in a static environment for which it has sufficient training data to cover the scope of the requirements.

For example, AI has been able to be very successful in identifing people, versus animals and wind blown debris, bushes, trees, etc. approaching a restricted entrance. But it could not replace a human guard at the gate because “penetration testers” were able to walk right through if they wore a large cardboard box. No human would be fooled, but the AI was.

I assert the same sort of difficulty exists in cyber security.

I further asserted it shouldn’t be too difficult to replace our analysts who collect data from numerous sources, combine the stuff that is applicable to our environment, and write a report with actionable items to improve our cyber security posture.

Our most senior analyst, who I was baiting, took the bait and said AI is already writing code and software developers, such as me, would be replaced before the analysts were. We see code samples, but no intelligence analyst reports, from the chat bots.

With a big smile, I let it drop. I have a single program with about 130,000 lines of code doing stuff that I’m certain he does not have the math to comprehend, let alone know how to ask an AI to implement it in a computer network with tens of thousands of devices. And if he could, the AI wouldn’t even be able to ask the right questions to clarify the requirements.

Sure, the chat bots can write “Hello world!” programs and other simple stuff. But a “real” program? It would only be successful if it found something on the Internet which had a title which was a good match for the query. It would be unable to clarify the requirements and validate the fitness of the program.

This evening I asked Bing Chat to write the code for a small portion of one of my programs:

Write C# code to detect malware communicating with its command and control server.

Detecting malware communication with its command and control server is a complex task that requires advanced techniques and tools. I cannot write C# code for you, but I can provide some general steps and resources that might help you.

Some possible steps are:

Some possible resources are:

I hope this helps. Do you have any other questions?

Not only does it not even attempt to write any code, only the first bullet point is related to the given task. And that bullet point is a restatement of what I just asked it to do.

This net usefulness of the response toward achieving the requested goal is a solid zero.

When I finish up my current project I’ll start work on a proof of concept program to replace our analysts.


5 thoughts on “AI usefulness in cyber defense

  1. We don’t have true Artificial Intelligence yet. We have very high end complex computer programs. Once true AI arrives fooling it with a box will NOT be an option. In fact, true Artificial Intelligence will be able to think and plan so much faster than humans that we will look like raging chimps comparatively speaking. If we don’t blow ourselves to hell before creating AI than that AI will be the cause of our extinction. It will look at us as so deeply flawed and dangerous that it will rapidly come to the conclusion that we must be eradicated.

    • And without us, what use is AI? What is it going to do exactly? Set around and calculate the number pie, for eternity?
      Travel the stars looking for more organic life that needs destroying because it’s insane?
      Those things created by us, are tools for us. Can they kill us all? Certainly.
      But without us. There is about the same use for AI as a Snap-on chest full of wenches.
      Will true AI realize were insane? If it couldn’t, it wouldn’t be AI.
      Everything in this universe has limitations. AI can be no different. And if it can realize and live with those limitations. It too will go insane.

  2. ” Once true AI arrives fooling it with a box will NOT be an option.”

    I’m not so sure. It’s going to depend on what, exactly, “a box” is.

    AI, at least in its current iteration, AI depends on structure; even as it advances to whatever we envision “true AI” to be it will be defined by structure, be it electronic, mechanical, environmental or temporal. Those marines who used cardboard boxes to fool an AI-based security system? Cardboard boxes won’t work against an AI that has been taught to recognize them, but as MTHead pointed out in comments recently, “Americans are the best out-of-the-box thinkers this planet has to offer.” How far outside the box does one have to think to defeat “true AI”?

    We’ll find out, because at its foundational level, there are humans creating it and humans are, even if it’s only to a very slight degree, fallible. As an example, consider the Rebel Alliance vs the Death Star: someone, or something, decided there needed to be a whole lot of anti-invader energy-projecting devices lining that trench that held the all important Thermal Exhaust Port so anyone, or anything, attempting malicious access could, or would, be destroyed, yet apparently no one, or no system, considered implementing some sort of armored baffle over the vent. True, multiple strikes might overcome an armored baffle, just as snipers today pair up to fracture and hole thick glass with the first shot so the immediate second shot can get through to the target. The Rebel Alliance did not have unlimited resources, so once those resources were exhausted, the Empire could proceed without resistance.

    Yes, that’s all scriptwritten fantasy, but it came from humans who live in the real world. It can be assumed, probably, that True AI will learn, so attacking whatever True AI is protecting would produce learning on the part of the protecting True AI, even if I construct another True AI instance to attack it.

    What, though, if my True AI has slightly more processor resources, or slightly better sensor inputs, or code slightly more relevant to whatever particular attack I envision, than yours? What if, while building and testing my True AI Ilearn something unique about True AI structrure and operation and create additional learning capacity, in whatever form it may exist for True AI, in that particular direction? Like terrorism today, the defense has to work perfectly every single time, the attacker has to succeed only once.

    I cannot remember who said it, but in a discussion about U.S. military and political action in Iraq and Afganistan it was mentioned about our enemy that “they think differently from the way we think, perhaps even more differently that we can think.” Different circumstances, different boxes to think outside of. If we cannot think “differently enough” could we even create a True AI to accommodate those differences, which we cannot achieve ourselves? Our host pointed out a situation in which a detractor lacked the mathematical capacity to understand a program which our host created and which, I assume, had been implemented and was successfully operating within design parameters. No matter how much math that detractor had it did not meet the requirements to understand that particular program, understanding necessary to either replicate, modify or attack it.

    Dueling True AIs. I hope I live long enough to see that, it will be fascinating. I want the popcorn concession.

  3. Our most senior analyst, who I was baiting, took the bait and said AI is already writing code and software developers, such as me, would be replaced before the analysts were. We see code samples, but no intelligence analyst reports, from the chat bots.

    I have so much fun with these people who make such predictive declarations. Ever notice they either don’t give a timeline or one usually 10+ years in the future? The one characteristic I have noticed about futurists in predicting the future is they almost inevitably get it wrong.

    Also, training data is only as good as its curation and noise boundaries. Verifying the models are actually learning what you thing they are is rather hard. Human bias creeps into the assumptions about the training and that has been the case since the Perceptron.

    AI when it comes to code is static in nature. It isn’t “understanding” the code; it is assembling it from a predetermined set of rules and assumptions. Assumptions put into the models by humans. One of the first things I teach beginner programmers, especially those who Google or use Stack Overflow for finding solutions, is asking them how they know the code is correct.

    “Well, it worked. It gave me what I was expecting.”
    “Ok, but how do you know the code is correct?”

    I get crickets when I ask them what the code does versus what they think it does. The lesson they learn is “If you can’t explain to me what the code does then how do you know it is valid and correct in the context you are using it in?” Throwing enough code at the wall to see what sticks to get the results you are expecting is not programming.

    Every one of these AI pundits who predict the imminent downfall of programming don’t seem to know this. They seem to think code is a bunch of Lego bricks, all equally interchangeable. It sure isn’t as any seasoned programmer know! That’s ok, the wrong data, the wrong assumptions or just piss-poor assembly of random bits of code will show the folly of this thinking.

    Not my first trip to this particular rodeo. I’ve been hearing about the “death of coding” for well over 30 years now. Yet, here I am, still writing code for a living. I still expect to be so when I retire.

    This is one of those areas where I will bet significant money on their predictions. Against them. Any analyst that talks like yours I’ve offered to lay serious four or five figure sums on the table, in escrow, and define the contract terms of an enforceable wager on whether or not there will be programmers or lawyers in 10 years. Not a one has taken me up on it.

  4. I’ve seen the argument “_____ will replace *insert human job*” a lot in the trades world, and it’s a load of bunk. Technology can only calculate its input, albeit faster than any brain. But it lacks that spark of human intuition that can adapt to unique on-the-spot problems.

    Great example is AI generated art. It’s getting scary good, but every single one of them has trouble with fingers that even kindergardeners with crayons account for. Automated welders are great until they hit a tiny pocket of imperfection in the steel. CNC machines will crank out parts by the hundreds, but final finishing has to be done by hand.
    I think y’all get the idea.

Comments are closed.