73Trust
Highly Accurate
🔍 Web Verified
Stefan EissingonMastodon1d ago
AIs have been finding bugs and vulnerabilities in #curl for some time.
Is it work to fix those? Yes.
Has someone paid for this? Partially (wolfSSL and @sovtechfund)
Are the AIs annoying? Yes, very.
Could humans find the same bugs? Yes, if they‘d somehow avoid being bored to death through it.
Was there something „heartbleed“ like? No.
Were there lots of C mistakes? No, logic bugs mostly.
Do AIs run out of steam? Yes. After a while a model stops finding things. Findings differ per model.
Trust Metrics
75
70
80
55
Claim Accuracy75%
Source Quality70%
Framing & Tone80%
Context55%
Analysis Summary
An experienced developer shares technical observations about AI finding bugs in curl—a widely-used C library—noting that while AI tools have discovered real vulnerabilities, most are logic errors rather than catastrophic C memory bugs, and that AI models eventually exhaust their discovery capacity on the same codebase. The specific funding claims cannot be verified independently, but the broader pattern of AI-assisted security testing in open-source projects is well-documented in 2025-2026 industry practice.
Claims Analysis (5)
“AIs have been finding bugs and vulnerabilities in curl for some time”
AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is documented practice; curl is known target but no comprehensive public audit found
“Partially (wolfSSL and @sovtechfund) paid for fixes”
Specific funding claims for curl security work cannot be independently confirmed from available sources
“Logic bugs mostly, not C mistakes”
Technical assessment by someone claiming domain knowledge; plausible but not independently verifiable
“No Heartbleed-like vulnerabilities found”
No critical buffer overflow equivalent reported in curl in recent years; absence of such incidents is documented
“AIs eventually stop finding new bugs after a while”
Consistent with known limitations of LLM-based fuzzing — models plateau on familiar codebases
Was this analysis helpful?
Try ClearFeed free →