XBOW, an autonomous penetration tester, has reached the top spot on HackerOne

Xbow has really smart people working on it, so they're well-aware of the usual 30-second critiques that come up in this thread. For example, they take specific steps to eliminate false positives.

The #1 spot in the ranking is both more of a deal and less of a deal than it might appear. It's less of a deal in that HackerOne is an economic numbers game. There are countless programs you can sign up for, with varied difficulty levels and payouts. Most of them pay not a whole lot and don't attract top talent in the industry. Instead, they offer supplemental income to infosec-minded school-age kids in the developing world. So I wouldn't read this as "Xbow is the best bug hunter in the US". That's a bit of a marketing gimmick.

But this is also not a particularly meaningful objective. The problem is that there's a lot of low-hanging bugs that need squashing and it's hard to allocate sufficient resources to that. Top infosec talent doesn't want to do it (and there's not enough of it). Consulting companies can do it, but they inevitably end up stretching themselves too thin, so the coverage ends up being hit-and-miss. There's a huge market for tools that can find easy bugs cheaply and without too many false positives.

I personally don't doubt that LLMs and related techniques are well-tailored for this task, completely independent of whether they can outperform leading experts. But there are skeptics, so I think this is an important real-world result.

While impressive, a lot of manual human work was involved both to filter the input and the output, this is not a “fully” automated workflow, sorry. But, yeah, kudos to them.

First:

> To bridge that gap, we started dogfooding XBOW in public and private bug bounty programs hosted on HackerOne. We treated it like any external researcher would: no shortcuts, no internal knowledge—just XBOW, running on its own.

Is it dogfooding if you're not doing it to yourself? I'd considerit dogfooding only if they were flooding themselves in AI generated bug reports, not to other people. They're not the ones reviewing them.

Also, honest question: what does "best" means here? The one that has sent the most reports?

I'm confused on whether or not this actually outperformed humans. The more interesting statistic would be how much money it made versus the average hacker one top ranked contributor.

Have XBow provided a link to this claim, I could only find:

https://hackerone.com/xbow?type=user

Which shows a different picture. This may not invalidate their claim (best US), but a screenshot can be a bit cherry-picked.

Since I am the cofounder of a mostly manual based testing in that space we do follow the new AI hackbots closely. There is a lot of money being raised (Horizon3 at 100M, Xbow at 87M, Mindfort will probably soon raise).

The future is definitely a combination of human and bots like anything else, it won't replace the humans just like coding bots won't replace devs. In fact this will allow humans to focus ob the fun/creative hacking instead of the basic/boring tests.

What I am worried about is on the triage/reproduction side, right now it is still mostly manual and it is a hard problem to automate.

I want to know how much they made in bounties versus how much they spent on compute.

The thing about bug bounties, the only way to win is to not play the game.

This does not surprise me. In a couple of 'legacy' open source projects I found DoS attacks within 10 minutes, with a working PoC. It crashed the server entirely. I suspect with more prompting it could have found RCE but it was an idle shower thought to try.

While niche and not widely used; there are at least thousands of publicly available servers for each of these projects.

I genuinely think this is one of the biggest near term issues with AI. Even if we get great AI "defence" tooling, there are just so many servers and (IoT or otherwise) devices out there, most of which is not trivial to patch. While a few niche services getting pwned isn't probably a big deal, a million niche services all getting pwned in quick succession is likely to cause huge disruption. There is so much code out there that hasn't been remotely security checked.

Maybe the end solution is some sort of LLM based "WAF" that inspects all traffic that ISPs deploy.

> XBOW submitted nearly 1,060 vulnerabilities.

Yikes, explains why my manually submitted single vulnerability is taking weeks to triage.

I'm generally pretty bearish on AI security research, and think most people don't know anything about what they're talking about, but XBOW is frankly one of the few legitimately interesting and competent companies in the space, and their writeups and reports have good and well thought out results. Congrats!

Receiving hundreds of AI generated bug reports would be so demoralizing and probably turn me off from maintaining an open source project forever. I think developers are going to eventually need tools to filter out slop. If you didn’t take the time to write it, why should I take the time to read it?