Well this is certainly interesting, I wonder how their secrets were being stored, I assumed they were stored in vault and then injected with a sidecar, but I guess not
Seen multiple folks in the Railway Discord confirming that their secrets stored in Railway have been used by third parties, so it definitely sounds like the attackers were able to read decrypted environment variables.
Environment variables are generally fine for secrets. Environment files are problematic. Modern systems that inject secrets into the environment launch the program itself.
(pre-caveat thing to not be massively annoyingly pedantic throughout, I'm not a security buff and I know who it is I'm talking to, I'm not trying to correct them)
I'm not sure I get the difference - the issue I would have thought was having the system code have access to the secrets themselves? Env file vs env vars injected at runtime seems the same there - either can be exfiltrated. The difference would be having it injected when used.
Is the problem with files about what happens outside that, being committed, etc?
Everything can be exfiltrated. If you never store the environment in a durable file, it's not meaningfully easier to exfiltrate from the environment than from process memory. Most of the wisdom about the insecurity of environment variables falls out of people setting them in .profile or in .envrc files --- that's very bad, yes, as are configuration files (the thing 12 Factor Apps was responding to).
The headline here is that there's no reason to believe "environment variables" were the reason this data was breached; presumably, the database those variables came from was what actually got hit.
> Use environment variables to point to where secrets are located, not to store their values.
Now your apps need to be able to read the secret that is pointed to, as opposed to the task runner populating the secret and the app would not know about the details.Not to mention the changes it entails to development.
It doesn't sound like they got them via a shell environment, they just hacked into the place that stored them. If the place you store secrets can be hacked into, it doesn't really matter if they are injected into environment variables or not.
You may think that sounds like a very nice salary but $4MM annual gross is a very small business. I can’t imagine how Railway would be in business if that were considered a large customer.
Sure, I guess there are a ton of dumb people. But please name a few sites that aren't slop ecom fly by nights... I cant think of any serious business that runs on raleway.
I dont understand using any PaaS that essentially functions by arbitraging aws to people that are scared of an aws dashboard at a 3x markup.
Seems like a decent platform for toy projects not for enterprise.
Maybe I'm finally old, but I don't see how it's surprising that Raleway is at all successful. Heroku built the same business ~15 years ago and had plenty of "enterprise" clients. I don't really understand if there's that much more value in Raleway vs Vercel, and Vercel claims to have OpenAI and Meta as clients.
300K ARR means you get 300K in annual recurring revenue.
Subtract costs for employees. Which, given current economy and inflation, that gets you a founder scraping on their savings, one or two other people (remember that if you're paying someone unless it's totally offshored through a house which has it's own inflation, you have other factors) and then your own taxes... yeah... much more than that and you are in the black.
As a general factor I keep in mind, when I worked at a 'normal' but toxic place before I was an actual software engineer, my manager's rules were something like '40 percent L2R' (might have been lower) for in-house employees and 70-
80% L2R for contractors.
IOW, for every dollar billed for an actual employee, we paid the employee 40 cents. For every dollar billed for a contractor, we paid them 70-80 cents.
I've heard similar figures from others (e.x. 'in house employee has a real cost of 1.5-2x their actual pay').
And yes it sucks and yes the structure at least here in the US is a factor.
I really don't know how we are going to deal with accelerated exploit generation via LLMs — it blows up the disclosure processes we've evolved.
The only thing I can think of is hunkering down with static HTML to reduce attack surface, but that's laughably incompatible with many many business requirements.
I think it will kill open source to some degree. I found it already very hard to imagine how the endless queues of issues were being dealt with so diligently, but at least there was a human on the other side. The torrent that is unleashed now is not manageable on a human scale. It's a highly automated arms race with a bunch of good-willing humans caught in the crossfire between large companies and criminals duking it out.
A lot of people in the open source world actually enjoy the act of programming. Not all of them will enjoy prompting to the same degree, but to keep pace with the bad guys you will have to either join or find something else to do. That's going to be a big loss.
It's funny, that's true although I personally can't relate — I enjoy having built something robust, but the act of building isn't something I love.
I can imagine prompting an LLM to build provably correct software. Aren't we already doing something similar already when we remind it to write unit tests and account for all edge cases?
Actually writing provably correct software from scratch sounds terribly tedious, which is why I've never explored it. But maybe an LLM could make that task more approachable.
I switch between the two modes. I love algorithmic stuff and I really don't like working on boilerplate and plumbing. So I use AI for the second and read every line and all the other stuff I roll by hand. The speedup isn't super like that but the amount of control is pretty good.
I just gave this prompt to duck.ai (5.6 Terra under the hood): "How would one go about writing a provably correct algorithm to count UTF-8 code points?"
It gave me something which looked pretty legit. Of course, the generated output very likely to be subtly wrong, but as starting input to a formal checked specification/proof process it seemed like a good start.
I wrote some UTF-8 based string handling software back in the day. It doesn't seem unreasonable to write up a set of requirements and edge cases and then have a formal mechanism prove correctness for common UTF-8 string manipulation operations.
[PEAK HN ON] Now if we could just write provably correct exception handling, we could solve one of the two PHP vulns from today. [PEAK HN OFF]
UTF8 is one nasty little standard. So many edge cases.
I should check it against my email address validator that would be a nice benchmark. It's interesting that there are people that are using email addresses that are not actually valid according to the standard.
We can have an LLM enumerate all those edge cases, and we can assemble them into a spec. Then we can integrate that spec into a proof.
And because the spec is functional rather than expressive, we can produce copyright-free, provably correct reference implementations whose correctness is as strong as our spec and our proof process.
This reference implementation would then be available for use by a language like PHP, or perhaps an LLM generating a vibe-coded dependency.
Over time, then, the accumulation of such proven reference works grows. We'll never prove all the application code out there correct, but incremental progress is possible.
I think such constructs should be part of the language or at least of the standard runtime library and not re-implemented by every Tom, Dick, Harriet & HAL.
In new software I write these days I limit the number of external dependencies and mostly vibe code anything I need besides the most critical foundational libraries (increasingly I am replacing these as well).
I think this, the supply chain attacks and binary reverse engineering will cause us to go back to thin clients, html over the wire and vibe coded libs instead of external open source deps.
Limiting the number of dependencies is always good, within reason. Especially with eco-systems that want to pull in everything and the kitchen sink. That's just asking for a supply chain attack. I try to limit myself to what well reputed distros provide and what I can review. That's still no guarantee but it cuts down the risk substantially.
Vibe coding deps is security through obscurity, with all of its weaknesses (and strengths). It's not that such deps have fewer security bugs than the open source reference implementations from which they are derived, it's just that those bugs are currently less discoverable.
In the near to medium term, the current open source regime has issues because bugs have become extremely discoverable and easy to exploit. But I am skeptical that obscurity will provide vibe coded deps sufficient protection over the long term. As soon as the source code for those vibe-coded deps leaks, you are screwed.
It's not just obscurity, it's increasingly difficult to trust the governance and quality of code of any outside library. A lot of deps in code are unnecessary you use maybe 1-10% of the api surface. But since building and maintaining software can be cheaper now it can be better to maintain a 1-5k LOC vibe coded version that meets your security bar than to trust an external party's governance & quality. This has the additional benefit of reconsidering if you even need the dep or if you can reuse something you already have (since you may not want to maintain the lib).
Prompting the LLM to "look for vulnerabilities in PHP's multipart upload handling code" is going to find stuff that "look for vulnerabilities in PHP" won't.
I was more talking about staying up on security issues with your stack after they are patched. We will need to check for security updates constantly, or risk being exploited in the gap between a security release and you finding out that you need to update your software.
Yes, so who will pay for that? Open source so far meant you would use your brains and your creativity, now you need to use your money too if you want to keep pace. From a 'guts, credits & glory' proposition to 'slop processor if you can afford it' is not really an upgrade.
I'm already tired, between pushing back on vibe coded internal projects being put onto the internet and then the constant barrage of CVEs that mean nothing.
Then you have real security incidents that you need to tune into constantly.
It’s funny that every security breach disclosure now has a mandatory “the attacker used AI!” as if it absolves you from having to maintain a secure system. If anything it makes the situation more damning. If it was possible to find exploits using AI then your own red teaming should have found them before the attacker did.
> your own red teaming should have found them before the attacker did
Easier said than done. The defender has to do everything right, all the time, to prevent a headline like this. The attacker only needs to be right once, and it's game over. AI or no AI.
Defending is so much harder than attacking. You don't even have to focus on one target, as you can just mass-AI-script a lot of attacks wherever it's possible, and see what sticks. Even if you did everything right, there's always the social-engineering angle, or a single compromised device, or just accidental bad upgrade through supply chain. If you can mass-spread the seed, and plant something that "calls home" constantly, you can just have an agent that would start the attack the minute it gets infected, and go deeper.
It's really a wild west right now, have no idea how we fix it. I'm assuming everything will get more concentrated in big co's hands, as having a very robust security is extremely hard.
Also, we have to agree that younger people will start companies. There will be small companies that cannot afford red teams. There will be companies that are just not equipped, and their profit margins cannot sustain constant attacks.
I didn’t actually see that in this post at all. They mention that the end goal of the attackers might be to get to AI inference providers. But I don’t think they are crying “AI was used” here.
We (Railway) make no claims about the tools the attacker used in the above post.
However, from discussions with partners, it resembled the pattern of attacks to secure AI API tokens and credentials. Preliminary forensics tell us that this was the primary goal of their attack. That said, I want to be careful here commenting until we have our formal public post-mortem.
> It’s funny that every security breach disclosure now has a mandatory “the attacker used AI!”
This isn't in the article? They do not at all claim "the attacked used AI!".
The only mention of "AI" is "We believe this is part of a series of attacks recently targeting platform companies with the aim of compromising AI inference providers." This is the same (apparently) end-goal as the Opencode breach last week, and is not blaming or finger-point at AI. It is stating (rightfully) that AI inference is very easy to resell and turn stolen credentials into cash.
how are the secrets decrypted, I would like some explanation so that I can have some understanding here, I am starting to feel like all these companies are just meme-ing with their security posture.
Like did someone vibe code too hard, how do env secrets leak for everyone...
Sometimes I do miss owning the hardware to run a thing.
What I don't miss was having all of those appliances run a different base distro of Linux, each with varying levels of update support, while the security team keeps reading security scans to me.
That was always going to happen. The future of the internet is AIs scamming you and your grandmother, ransomwaring you, draining your back accounts, etc. There will be no reason or rhyme, it's simply a function of available compute and ease of automation, both of which have reached a critical threshold.
I think we'll see a reduction in complexity and an increase in transparency, rather than just on-prem.
One medium-sized server can now easily serve the entire banking system of a large country. So you don't need clusters of servers with careful tradeoffs between consistency and availability because of the CAP theorem.
Just get a big honking host, slap Postres on it, and run your application server in a VM on the same host. For backup, export the WAL logs from Postgres onto your favorite off-site blob storage. UI for it? There's Pigsty.
It still makes sense to host this in a cloud provider, just because you probably don't want to deal with actual hardware. And maybe get a second standby server for redundancy.
That's it.
You'll need a bunch of external dependencies for email, 2FA, observability, LLMs, and so on. But they should all be outgoing dependencies that should not allow access back into your system.
A PostgreSQL server on an NVMe can handle several _million_ simple requests per second. This is bonkers.
Do you think you can hit these load levels? For compute, a 64-core CPU can saturate a 10G network with simple template rendering. If the code is written in something reasonably fast (Go, Rust, Java).
Of course, if you're on a scale of Amazon or Stripe, you'll need more than that.
I fully believe the only sustainable future is that hot patching will need to itself become fully automated. Hot patch now with a minimal allowed amount of line changes to head off the AIs, review it in office hours for auditing and the team is actually awake.
My second belief is that environment variables as a development concept will need to be retired. If it's something that causes a security breach if it by its mere existence on a public git repo, it is information that by design cannot ever pass to a filesystem out of a chain of trust, not by mere development conventions people choose to adhere to.
Due to the small nature of hot patching (eg. bump this dependency, rotate these keys, turn off that config, follow the runbook) it will unlikely need to be a frontier model and is likely able to be done LocalLLM/Jev style decision making rather than having to hand all the keys to frontier model operators.
Great, but the fact remains that easy hot patching which skips normal review is going to open you up to many of the same liabilities you're trying to minimize by introducing it. The target just shifts, and people will attack that infrastructure.
The actual solution largely involves the same technologies but in reverse: leveraging AI for live security monitoring, better correctness validation and security testing before code goes live, etc. And of course more pressure to use battle-tested widely-adopted libraries and systems, even though of course that comes with its own tradeoffs.
Importantly, as an engineer, when someone tells you something has liabilities or tradeoffs, the response is not "Everything is a liability, existing is a liability"; that is unprofessional. The appropriate response is to engage with them on these tradeoffs and working through the best ones, because that's your job. Otherwise defer to security engineers who are ready to back up their arguments. It could be as simple as following up with, "But do you think those liabilities outweigh the benefits of hot patching without proper review? What are some of the main liabilities you see, and what methods/technologies do you think properly address them?"
With AI, in the long term open source code might actually become more secure than obfuscated closed source, since it's had so many more (AI) eyes looking at it.
For the record, there was a bunch of non-functional vibe coded fixes flying around during this PHP bug. If you were just running the first thing AI made because you were worried about "not reacting," you would likely end up running a crap script.
AI is quite good at finding vulnerabilities, but it's been rough for patching them. The old adage "defenders have to be right every time, attackers only have to be right once" applies to AI security patches.
The security team at my company is working with a frontier lab to scan all our code/systems. They are in a borderline panic to close every possible issue, even innocuous ones that are buried under defense in depth. Whatever they are seeing from our partner has them spooked -- as in "acceptable risk" is no longer a thing anymore.
>We are going back to static htmls for public pages...
God yes, please. I backpack and mountaineer in the PNW and have been trying to research trip ideas up in British Columbia, and as a result I discovered https://bivouac.com.
Here's a website that's still frequently used by a large number of people as a valuable resource, is regularly updated and maintained, and yet looks like it's straight out of 1995.
Every pages loads instantaneously, everything is simple yet packed with detail, and it's such a basic, straightforward, delightfully pleasant experience to just browse through the site. I was so thrilled after just 5 minutes on the site that I threw them $25 for a year's full access.
Sorry for the tangent, but oh man, it's such a refreshingly stark contrast to the rest of the bullshit that fills the web these days.
Of course, it was a giant scam that tested for nothing and optimized for how to pass a test.
Let's see if companies are ready to hire more people who know what they are doing, against a super-intelligent swarm of millions of agents with cyber capabilities.
Train wreck. People were writing on discord 3 hours ago, 10 hours after the incident started, that keys created just for railway were running up usage. Meanwhile builds have been down for more than 12 hours. Only NOW did they just send out an email to all customers. I wouldn't have found out until then if I wasn't checking the discord periodically.
We have gotten a lot of comments about why didn't we just message the breach sooner when people have noticed compromise with their accounts. I think that crit is fair and justified, and although we have been up for days on end- I don't blame you if you don't have sympathy for us.
Our thought process was that we didn't want to recommend that people roll keys when we couldn't possibly confirm that we confidently plugged the breach and rolled the mitigation(s). I am comfortable to publicly say that this was a highly motivated attacker. Meanwhile, our threat team mitigates DDoSes, CVEs, while been patching everything immediately as dealt with exploits.
As for this breach in particular, we tried to balance a duty to warn, which we take very seriously... However, it took a significant amount of time on the order of hours to verify, reviewing, and keep up with the attacker as they attempted to move laterally around, and briefly, within the system. We didn't want message anything beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no further exploit paths.
We take the view that we would like to "aviate, navigate, then communicate" when we deal with incidents like these then we prepared communications to the public and all users. While it was ongoing, we were in contact with external partners and vendors to revoke keys (the source of some online chatter) with investigators that required time and coordination.
On the incident side of the house, it's a suite of bad options, we're still in the middle of it making sure customers are safe. But, hopefully this offers a view into our thought process.
Formal postmortem after we fully restore service and complete the investigation. Apologies to all, I personally I feel like I let everyone down.
IMO "aviate, navigate, then communicate" does not work in this situation. There is more than one pilot. The moment you detected a breach, hell, even knowing that an attacker was inside your system, you should have pointed to anyone. Hell, even AI, to draft a disclosure with more info coming.
"aviate, navigate, then communicate" only matters if you are the one in control of outcomes.
Customers could have simply revoked keys and not re-launched services with rolled credentials (that from your post, may have been re-stolen), but instead you let this fester.
What a disaster for Railway. I hope you get through this stressful moment, but this should be the end of Railway.
> and although we have been up for days on end- I don't blame you if you don't have sympathy for us.
From my timezone, this started last night and is ongoing into today. Has this been going for longer than the status page and email indicated? If so, why was notification delayed so long?
I love your product, have an incredible amount of sympathy for you as humans (having been in similar sleep-consuming nightmares) and was willing to forgive the GCP-triggered outage as an understandable teething pain, but sadly this response has really knocked my confidence.
I understand the hard reality of security issues -- "urgently rotate your keys, they're already compromised" is an important message to share -- but "sorry, that will also require your site going down because we've blocked deploys" (presumably as a response to the incident...) is an incredibly frustrating situation to find ourselves in.
Right just as I take my first day off (for the entire year!) from work to fly out for a vacation. The mother of all security bombs starts dropping all around stacks and services that I am responsible for. How else could have taken time off go for me…
Thanks, yes I will. Left without the laptop(s). Let the chips fall where they lay. If they need me back so urgently, they will have to go through the full cancellation of booked flights and hotels first. Lets enjoy the time off.
I didn't read it as that, more as, "You might hear about other similar work-related bullshit here while you're trying to chill and not think about it".
Brother do not cancel anything for these people, they do not care about you, it's their fault for not considering bus factor in their org chart. Why can't the person above you handle that?
Oh you're right, that does sound like a good reason for the original commenter to not take his vacation. Lucky the organisation he works for made him the single point of failure in circumstances such as these.
What about buckets? I tried to regenerate my secrets but deploys are paused. I don't know if they actually rotated or not because the old keys seem to still be working! Dear attackers, please don't read or mutate my files while my app is offline :)
> We even stood up a replication feed of their own control-plane database using credentials committed in their own repositories — GCP service-account keys and an Azure service principal — and let their infrastructure deliver it to us. Every six hours, for the last twenty-two days of the campaign, from 8 September to 30 September, that pipeline faithfully re-exported every table of the operational heart of TiDB Cloud — tenants, users, API keys, cluster credentials, changefeeds, migrations — and pushed it out. Eighty-eight consecutive exports, not one detection event.
”An external incident response firm reviewed PingCAP’s production systems and found no evidence that the attacker ran commands or maintained persistent access in the systems reviewed”
The evidence is in the blog post explaining how they did it. However seeing at how bad their operations were I doubt they have evidence of anything themselves
This is exactly why we should own our deployment stacks. Going to push up the launch here as pdt is a railway alternative thttps://github.com/autoidm/pdt for scheduled jobs
AI makes this so much easier to do now, we should all own our own code, and deployment infrastructure (use a cloud instead of someone wrapping aws for you)
No, and this isn't about a supply chain attack on Python libs. This is about running your service(s) on a service that runs in front of a cloud provider. My argument is simply that it's needless extra risk
You do have an argument to be made about vendoring our dependencies, or removing them in general. Not a bad idea
This is so fucked up. I was reviewing my account and I just saw this in the logs... Claude says database credentials and bucket credentials go in via env vars so likely they had access to database and bucket contents.
Audit Logs
Oct 21, 2026 05:54:13 PM CDT
BucketInstanceCredential.regenerated in my-project production by Railway Staff
Oct 21, 2026 05:54:13 PM CDT
BucketInstanceCredential.regenerated in my-project production by Railway Staff
Oct 21, 2026 05:54:13 PM CDT
BucketInstanceCredential.regenerated in my-project production by Railway Staff
Yup, got my OpenRouter key. They managed to run up a whole $2 on Opus 5.5 and Fable. Well, time for a new hosting provider I guess...
Incidentally, I'm testing Muse as an email triage agent today - it buried "oh also, railway and anthropic say yours keys have been leaked and you need to rotate asap" under 50 routine deploy / admin emails notifications. Oh to live through such an AI powered software renaissance!
It's 5:20 AM here in Europe and I just rotated a bunch of keys.
Only to read,
> Because deployments are paused, you will not be able to redeploy your services to pick up the new credentials until builds are restored. We will post here when builds resume with any additional details.
So now my service does not work. Which is worse: a stolen key or a broken product? I'm genuinely regretting following their advice on rotating keys, because logs showed no sign of incorrect usage, and our service would at least have remained online.
I hope that they automatically redeploy their customer services. I just worry that I won't have tested it. I mean: 5AM. Keys changed. Nothing more I can do. Should go back to sleep. No timeline to wake up to check deployments, so... I... wait?
Same situation. Frankly unbelievable - how do you not lead with this? You can't tell customers to rotate their keys and not inform them in the same breath them that actually, environment variable updates currently cannot deploy.
> What you should do: As such, we strongly recommend that you immediately roll all environment variables, including any API keys, stored in Railway, as well as any private registry credentials, and review logs for those services for unusual activity.
> All deployments are paused while we investigate. Until builds are restored, you will not be able to roll out new versions. We apologize for this inconvenience.
They lead with rotating keys.
Next, I did not realize that this meant not being able to restart an existing deployment to bring up new env vars. They also speak of builds. I don’t need a new build. I need my existing deployment to work.
It was not at all clear ‘paused’ mean this; maybe I should have realized, but I had interpreted it as doing new deployments or builds. New services. Code changes. New builds as they even say. It’s fully reasonable to pause that in this sort of situation and so I had interpreted their statement that way.
If there is a clear impact from following advice — ‘do what we recommend and your service will not function’ — those who provide that advice need to make that clear.
Their first message where they recommended rotating keys did not make that clear (though obviously if you cannot deploy, rotating keys means you will go down)
I changed he api key in the env var as openrouter revoke the previous one based on this incident. However, as the redeploy cannot be done in my region, the env cannot be updated and now the product cannot be used. Any command in railway to fix this?
Keloran | 5 hours ago
MattIPv4 | 5 hours ago
numbsafari | 4 hours ago
I'm just going to say it, since having said it non-stop for over 20 years, nobody seems to listen and we keep circling this drain.
The 12 Factor manifesto was 100% wrong on this point.
Use environment variables to point to where secrets are located, not to store their values.
zaik | 4 hours ago
tptacek | 3 hours ago
IanCal | 3 hours ago
I'm not sure I get the difference - the issue I would have thought was having the system code have access to the secrets themselves? Env file vs env vars injected at runtime seems the same there - either can be exfiltrated. The difference would be having it injected when used.
Is the problem with files about what happens outside that, being committed, etc?
tptacek | 3 hours ago
The headline here is that there's no reason to believe "environment variables" were the reason this data was breached; presumably, the database those variables came from was what actually got hit.
skinfaxi | 3 hours ago
Now your apps need to be able to read the secret that is pointed to, as opposed to the task runner populating the secret and the app would not know about the details.Not to mention the changes it entails to development.
jrochkind1 | 3 hours ago
atherton94027 | 2 hours ago
MattIPv4 | 5 hours ago
theturtletalks | 5 hours ago
https://x.com/wickedguro/status/2113015432974405658
lifeisloving | 4 hours ago
posabsolute | 3 hours ago
halfmatthalfcat | 3 hours ago
rco8786 | 3 hours ago
SkyPuncher | 3 hours ago
jeremyjh | 3 hours ago
lifeisloving | 2 hours ago
I dont understand using any PaaS that essentially functions by arbitraging aws to people that are scared of an aws dashboard at a 3x markup.
Seems like a decent platform for toy projects not for enterprise.
jeremyjh | 2 hours ago
j16sdiz | 2 hours ago
https://railway.com/customers
tripadvisor and bilt, maybe?
It's pretty common to have "toy" infrastructure in a non-tech business
what | 34 minutes ago
nemothekid | 23 minutes ago
to11mtm | an hour ago
Subtract costs for employees. Which, given current economy and inflation, that gets you a founder scraping on their savings, one or two other people (remember that if you're paying someone unless it's totally offshored through a house which has it's own inflation, you have other factors) and then your own taxes... yeah... much more than that and you are in the black.
As a general factor I keep in mind, when I worked at a 'normal' but toxic place before I was an actual software engineer, my manager's rules were something like '40 percent L2R' (might have been lower) for in-house employees and 70- 80% L2R for contractors.
IOW, for every dollar billed for an actual employee, we paid the employee 40 cents. For every dollar billed for a contractor, we paid them 70-80 cents.
I've heard similar figures from others (e.x. 'in house employee has a real cost of 1.5-2x their actual pay').
And yes it sucks and yes the structure at least here in the US is a factor.
RetardedBastard | an hour ago
DrawTR | 5 hours ago
jacquesm | 5 hours ago
rectang | 4 hours ago
The only thing I can think of is hunkering down with static HTML to reduce attack surface, but that's laughably incompatible with many many business requirements.
jacquesm | 4 hours ago
rectang | 4 hours ago
I don't have experience with proof based tools, so I'm not sure what's feasible.
jacquesm | 3 hours ago
rectang | 3 hours ago
I can imagine prompting an LLM to build provably correct software. Aren't we already doing something similar already when we remind it to write unit tests and account for all edge cases?
Actually writing provably correct software from scratch sounds terribly tedious, which is why I've never explored it. But maybe an LLM could make that task more approachable.
jacquesm | 3 hours ago
rectang | 2 hours ago
It gave me something which looked pretty legit. Of course, the generated output very likely to be subtly wrong, but as starting input to a formal checked specification/proof process it seemed like a good start.
I wrote some UTF-8 based string handling software back in the day. It doesn't seem unreasonable to write up a set of requirements and edge cases and then have a formal mechanism prove correctness for common UTF-8 string manipulation operations.
[PEAK HN ON] Now if we could just write provably correct exception handling, we could solve one of the two PHP vulns from today. [PEAK HN OFF]
jacquesm | 2 hours ago
I should check it against my email address validator that would be a nice benchmark. It's interesting that there are people that are using email addresses that are not actually valid according to the standard.
rectang | an hour ago
We can have an LLM enumerate all those edge cases, and we can assemble them into a spec. Then we can integrate that spec into a proof.
And because the spec is functional rather than expressive, we can produce copyright-free, provably correct reference implementations whose correctness is as strong as our spec and our proof process.
This reference implementation would then be available for use by a language like PHP, or perhaps an LLM generating a vibe-coded dependency.
Over time, then, the accumulation of such proven reference works grows. We'll never prove all the application code out there correct, but incremental progress is possible.
jacquesm | an hour ago
aaron_m04 | 4 hours ago
jacquesm | 3 hours ago
faizshah | 3 hours ago
I think this, the supply chain attacks and binary reverse engineering will cause us to go back to thin clients, html over the wire and vibe coded libs instead of external open source deps.
jacquesm | 2 hours ago
rectang | 2 hours ago
In the near to medium term, the current open source regime has issues because bugs have become extremely discoverable and easy to exploit. But I am skeptical that obscurity will provide vibe coded deps sufficient protection over the long term. As soon as the source code for those vibe-coded deps leaks, you are screwed.
faizshah | 2 hours ago
jacquesm | an hour ago
The value of 'code written before 2024' is going to be substantially higher than of code written afterwards.
Sort of like a 'low background steel', a comparison someone made on HN before which I think was pretty good.
prodigycorp | 10 minutes ago
jacquesm | 7 minutes ago
cortesoft | 4 hours ago
rectang | 4 hours ago
Prompting the LLM to "look for vulnerabilities in PHP's multipart upload handling code" is going to find stuff that "look for vulnerabilities in PHP" won't.
cortesoft | 2 hours ago
jacquesm | 4 hours ago
cyberpunk | 4 hours ago
Those can leak / be stolen of course, but a bunch of my clients php apis survived as without a cert they’re told to fuck right off.
It does make their client onboarding a bit harder but it’s a trade off which seems to have been the right one.
cortesoft | 2 hours ago
kilroy123 | 3 hours ago
merlindru | 4 hours ago
llama052 | 4 hours ago
Then you have real security incidents that you need to tune into constantly.
paxy | 5 hours ago
barrrrald | 5 hours ago
arcanemachiner | 4 hours ago
Easier said than done. The defender has to do everything right, all the time, to prevent a headline like this. The attacker only needs to be right once, and it's game over. AI or no AI.
gkoberger | 4 hours ago
tokioyoyo | 4 hours ago
It's really a wild west right now, have no idea how we fix it. I'm assuming everything will get more concentrated in big co's hands, as having a very robust security is extremely hard.
Also, we have to agree that younger people will start companies. There will be small companies that cannot afford red teams. There will be companies that are just not equipped, and their profit margins cannot sustain constant attacks.
mbreese | 4 hours ago
Or did I miss something?
ndneighbor | an hour ago
However, from discussions with partners, it resembled the pattern of attacks to secure AI API tokens and credentials. Preliminary forensics tell us that this was the primary goal of their attack. That said, I want to be careful here commenting until we have our formal public post-mortem.
nrmitchi | 4 hours ago
This isn't in the article? They do not at all claim "the attacked used AI!".
The only mention of "AI" is "We believe this is part of a series of attacks recently targeting platform companies with the aim of compromising AI inference providers." This is the same (apparently) end-goal as the Opencode breach last week, and is not blaming or finger-point at AI. It is stating (rightfully) that AI inference is very easy to resell and turn stolen credentials into cash.
wateralien | 5 hours ago
iririririr | 4 hours ago
the speed of irresponsible deployments is infinite now, by design
pizzafeelsright | 2 hours ago
esseph | 5 hours ago
minraws | 5 hours ago
Like did someone vibe code too hard, how do env secrets leak for everyone...
9cb14c1ec0 | 4 hours ago
gbnwl | 5 hours ago
martinald | 4 hours ago
Fwiw it sounds similar to the hack over the weekend that opencode suffered.
reconnecting | 4 hours ago
LAN cables will go up in price soon.
solyin | 4 hours ago
lawrenceduk | 4 hours ago
codeulike | 4 hours ago
80fj0348i | 4 hours ago
reaperducer | 4 hours ago
doubled112 | 4 hours ago
Sometimes I do miss owning the hardware to run a thing.
What I don't miss was having all of those appliances run a different base distro of Linux, each with varying levels of update support, while the security team keeps reading security scans to me.
seanw444 | 4 hours ago
soulofmischief | 3 hours ago
cyberax | 3 hours ago
One medium-sized server can now easily serve the entire banking system of a large country. So you don't need clusters of servers with careful tradeoffs between consistency and availability because of the CAP theorem.
Just get a big honking host, slap Postres on it, and run your application server in a VM on the same host. For backup, export the WAL logs from Postgres onto your favorite off-site blob storage. UI for it? There's Pigsty.
It still makes sense to host this in a cloud provider, just because you probably don't want to deal with actual hardware. And maybe get a second standby server for redundancy.
That's it.
You'll need a bunch of external dependencies for email, 2FA, observability, LLMs, and so on. But they should all be outgoing dependencies that should not allow access back into your system.
mosura | 3 hours ago
cyberax | 2 hours ago
Do you think you can hit these load levels? For compute, a 64-core CPU can saturate a 10G network with simple template rendering. If the code is written in something reasonably fast (Go, Rust, Java).
Of course, if you're on a scale of Amazon or Stripe, you'll need more than that.
chanux | 2 hours ago
https://blog.railway.com/p/data-center-build-part-one
yakz | 4 hours ago
Fordec | 4 hours ago
My second belief is that environment variables as a development concept will need to be retired. If it's something that causes a security breach if it by its mere existence on a public git repo, it is information that by design cannot ever pass to a filesystem out of a chain of trust, not by mere development conventions people choose to adhere to.
munificent | 4 hours ago
Great, even less control over the things we use and more power ceded to corporations.
Fordec | 4 hours ago
SoftTalker | 14 minutes ago
stabbles | 4 hours ago
Fordec | 4 hours ago
soulofmischief | 3 hours ago
The actual solution largely involves the same technologies but in reverse: leveraging AI for live security monitoring, better correctness validation and security testing before code goes live, etc. And of course more pressure to use battle-tested widely-adopted libraries and systems, even though of course that comes with its own tradeoffs.
Importantly, as an engineer, when someone tells you something has liabilities or tradeoffs, the response is not "Everything is a liability, existing is a liability"; that is unprofessional. The appropriate response is to engage with them on these tradeoffs and working through the best ones, because that's your job. Otherwise defer to security engineers who are ready to back up their arguments. It could be as simple as following up with, "But do you think those liabilities outweigh the benefits of hot patching without proper review? What are some of the main liabilities you see, and what methods/technologies do you think properly address them?"
mizzao | 2 hours ago
Capricorn2481 | 11 minutes ago
AI is quite good at finding vulnerabilities, but it's been rough for patching them. The old adage "defenders have to be right every time, attackers only have to be right once" applies to AI security patches.
Sivart13 | 4 hours ago
0x1F8B | 4 hours ago
xtracto | 3 hours ago
B2C? too risky to publish services online haha.
mosura | 3 hours ago
SoftTalker | 6 minutes ago
http://www.tarsnap.com/spiped.html
jjulius | 50 minutes ago
God yes, please. I backpack and mountaineer in the PNW and have been trying to research trip ideas up in British Columbia, and as a result I discovered https://bivouac.com.
Here's a website that's still frequently used by a large number of people as a valuable resource, is regularly updated and maintained, and yet looks like it's straight out of 1995.
Every pages loads instantaneously, everything is simple yet packed with detail, and it's such a basic, straightforward, delightfully pleasant experience to just browse through the site. I was so thrilled after just 5 minutes on the site that I threw them $25 for a year's full access.
Sorry for the tangent, but oh man, it's such a refreshingly stark contrast to the rest of the bullshit that fills the web these days.
lijok | 4 hours ago
rvz | 4 hours ago
Let's see if companies are ready to hire more people who know what they are doing, against a super-intelligent swarm of millions of agents with cyber capabilities.
alpineman | 4 hours ago
ndneighbor | an hour ago
We have gotten a lot of comments about why didn't we just message the breach sooner when people have noticed compromise with their accounts. I think that crit is fair and justified, and although we have been up for days on end- I don't blame you if you don't have sympathy for us.
Our thought process was that we didn't want to recommend that people roll keys when we couldn't possibly confirm that we confidently plugged the breach and rolled the mitigation(s). I am comfortable to publicly say that this was a highly motivated attacker. Meanwhile, our threat team mitigates DDoSes, CVEs, while been patching everything immediately as dealt with exploits.
As for this breach in particular, we tried to balance a duty to warn, which we take very seriously... However, it took a significant amount of time on the order of hours to verify, reviewing, and keep up with the attacker as they attempted to move laterally around, and briefly, within the system. We didn't want message anything beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no further exploit paths.
We take the view that we would like to "aviate, navigate, then communicate" when we deal with incidents like these then we prepared communications to the public and all users. While it was ongoing, we were in contact with external partners and vendors to revoke keys (the source of some online chatter) with investigators that required time and coordination.
On the incident side of the house, it's a suite of bad options, we're still in the middle of it making sure customers are safe. But, hopefully this offers a view into our thought process.
Formal postmortem after we fully restore service and complete the investigation. Apologies to all, I personally I feel like I let everyone down.
film42 | an hour ago
eclipticplane | 53 minutes ago
Customers could have simply revoked keys and not re-launched services with rolled credentials (that from your post, may have been re-stolen), but instead you let this fester.
What a disaster for Railway. I hope you get through this stressful moment, but this should be the end of Railway.
frio | 29 minutes ago
From my timezone, this started last night and is ongoing into today. Has this been going for longer than the status page and email indicated? If so, why was notification delayed so long?
I love your product, have an incredible amount of sympathy for you as humans (having been in similar sleep-consuming nightmares) and was willing to forgive the GCP-triggered outage as an understandable teething pain, but sadly this response has really knocked my confidence.
I understand the hard reality of security issues -- "urgently rotate your keys, they're already compromised" is an important message to share -- but "sorry, that will also require your site going down because we've blocked deploys" (presumably as a response to the incident...) is an incredibly frustrating situation to find ourselves in.
AJRF | 4 hours ago
Aboutplants | 4 hours ago
tom1337 | 4 hours ago
eecks | 4 hours ago
sergiotapia | 4 hours ago
fbrncci | 4 hours ago
jjulius | 4 hours ago
bryancoxwell | 4 hours ago
fbrncci | 3 hours ago
boringg | 3 hours ago
hirako2000 | 2 hours ago
jjulius | 59 minutes ago
jjulius | an hour ago
Liuser | 4 hours ago
jazzyjackson | 4 hours ago
oofdere | 3 hours ago
eecks | 3 hours ago
dansquizsoft | 3 hours ago
eecks | 3 hours ago
dansquizsoft | 3 hours ago
balderdash | 3 hours ago
reassess_blind | 3 hours ago
remywang | 2 hours ago
vips7L | an hour ago
fyzix | 4 hours ago
tossstone | 4 hours ago
dingaling911 | an hour ago
frio | 4 hours ago
eecks | 3 hours ago
xmcp123 | 3 hours ago
eclipticplane | an hour ago
piazz | 53 minutes ago
film42 | 46 minutes ago
shinycode | 4 hours ago
dgellow | 4 hours ago
alpineman | 2 hours ago
vldszn | 4 hours ago
And it’s all just getting started imo.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/emudhra-certificate-compromise
https://www.wiz.io/blog/php2shell-php-rce
tom1337 | 4 hours ago
https://docs.gitlab.com/releases/patches/patch-release-gitla...
vldszn | 4 hours ago
vdfs | 3 hours ago
bokchoi | 4 hours ago
vldszn | 4 hours ago
netvarun | 3 hours ago
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50173716
corford | 3 hours ago
semiquaver | 2 hours ago
jeremyjh | 3 hours ago
yungbeto | 2 hours ago
rstat1 | 2 hours ago
llama052 | 2 hours ago
”An external incident response firm reviewed PingCAP’s production systems and found no evidence that the attacker ran commands or maintained persistent access in the systems reviewed”
hmm, I don't think that's true.
danielheath | an hour ago
llama052 | an hour ago
sailfast | an hour ago
ChickeNES | an hour ago
dang | an hour ago
PingCap TiDB Leaks - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50173716 - Oct 2026 (32 comments)
(It had only spent 3 hours on the frontpage so I re-upped it.)
esseph | 34 minutes ago
SlightlyLeftPad | 3 hours ago
reducesuffering | an hour ago
torben-friis | 4 hours ago
Is that an accusation? As in, major AI players taking out competitors ?
paulgb | 28 minutes ago
goforbg | 4 hours ago
arbayi | 3 hours ago
sergiotapia | 3 hours ago
What is the best VPS to use today? Is it still hetzner or ovh?
1-6 | 3 hours ago
dylanz | 3 hours ago
eclipticplane | an hour ago
halfmatthalfcat | 28 minutes ago
barelysapient | 3 hours ago
visch | 2 hours ago
AI makes this so much easier to do now, we should all own our own code, and deployment infrastructure (use a cloud instead of someone wrapping aws for you)
skwirl | 2 hours ago
visch | 2 hours ago
You do have an argument to be made about vendoring our dependencies, or removing them in general. Not a bad idea
ksajadi | 2 hours ago
cowlby | an hour ago
piazz | an hour ago
Incidentally, I'm testing Muse as an email triage agent today - it buried "oh also, railway and anthropic say yours keys have been leaked and you need to rotate asap" under 50 routine deploy / admin emails notifications. Oh to live through such an AI powered software renaissance!
phyzome | 16 minutes ago
AndrewKemendo | an hour ago
I had an open gitea host pulled into some botnet
Luckily digitaloceam sent an alert.
vintagedave | an hour ago
Only to read,
> Because deployments are paused, you will not be able to redeploy your services to pick up the new credentials until builds are restored. We will post here when builds resume with any additional details.
So now my service does not work. Which is worse: a stolen key or a broken product? I'm genuinely regretting following their advice on rotating keys, because logs showed no sign of incorrect usage, and our service would at least have remained online.
I hope that they automatically redeploy their customer services. I just worry that I won't have tested it. I mean: 5AM. Keys changed. Nothing more I can do. Should go back to sleep. No timeline to wake up to check deployments, so... I... wait?
piazz | 55 minutes ago
brianfryer | 36 minutes ago
vintagedave | 26 minutes ago
> What you should do: As such, we strongly recommend that you immediately roll all environment variables, including any API keys, stored in Railway, as well as any private registry credentials, and review logs for those services for unusual activity.
> All deployments are paused while we investigate. Until builds are restored, you will not be able to roll out new versions. We apologize for this inconvenience.
They lead with rotating keys.
Next, I did not realize that this meant not being able to restart an existing deployment to bring up new env vars. They also speak of builds. I don’t need a new build. I need my existing deployment to work.
It was not at all clear ‘paused’ mean this; maybe I should have realized, but I had interpreted it as doing new deployments or builds. New services. Code changes. New builds as they even say. It’s fully reasonable to pause that in this sort of situation and so I had interpreted their statement that way.
If there is a clear impact from following advice — ‘do what we recommend and your service will not function’ — those who provide that advice need to make that clear.
theflyingkiwi42 | 25 minutes ago
averrous | 39 minutes ago
dylanz | 10 minutes ago
averrous | an hour ago
I changed he api key in the env var as openrouter revoke the previous one based on this incident. However, as the redeploy cannot be done in my region, the env cannot be updated and now the product cannot be used. Any command in railway to fix this?
rpmisms | 35 minutes ago
jasona123 | 13 minutes ago
jasona123 | 27 minutes ago
Thankfully I'm only using Railway for a hobby project (aptly, for a real-time transit dashboard) but still
tstrebitzer | 23 minutes ago
Ship software peacefully