Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild

Re:Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild by anematode on Wednesday February 18, 2026 @05:43PM (#47067461)

Not sure about that one. Fuzzers have a hard time creating certain narrow preconditions that a manual review can find.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild by yalok on Wednesday February 18, 2026 @08:09PM (#47068660)

is Google using LLM-guided fuzzers that can inspect the code first?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild by bastawhiz on Wednesday February 18, 2026 @10:47PM (#47069654)

Google, to their credit, has invested a TON of money into both manual review and also fuzzers. Every major fuzzing project I've read about in the last few years has been at least funded in part by Google.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild by UncleMeat on Thursday February 19, 2026 @09:40AM (#47074252)

They’ve gotten way better at this over the last decade with coverage guided execution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild by anematode on Thursday February 19, 2026 @10:43AM (#47075011)

Well, yes and no. For example, coverage-guided fuzzers won't reliably find the taken branch in

  if (hash(x) == 0x12345678) {

  }

Of course this is contrived, but you can imagine something similar where it requires a delicate setup for that branch to be taken at all, that a human (or these days, an LLM) can find straightforwardly.

[ Parent | on HN ]