Claude Code? Here's What Hackers See

Купить ссылку здесь за руб.
Поставить к себе на сайт
7 Просмотры

  • Спасибо! Поделитесь с друзьями!

    Вам не понравилось видео. Спасибо за то что поделились своим мнением!

alexnet
Издатель
AI coding tools GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT are genuinely useful. They speed things up. They handle boilerplate. And that is exactly what makes this dangerous.

The more you trust the output, the less you actually read it. And the model has no way to know whether your endpoint is public-facing, whether your users include active attackers, or what your compliance requirements are. It writes code that works. It does not write code that is secure, unless you build that check into your process.

In this video we look at four OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities that keep showing up in AI-generated code: SQL injection, hardcoded secrets, broken access control, and insecure deserialization, then show exactly how SonarQube Cloud catches them with taint analysis, and how the new SonarQube MCP server closes the loop inside the agent itself.

Sponsored by SonarQube → https://fandf.co/4bHTkli

————————————————————

⏱️ CHAPTERS
0:00 Vibe coding and the trust gap
0:47 Why AI writes insecure code
2:20 OWASP Top 10 explained
2:45 The 4 vulnerabilities AI keeps shipping
3:11 SQL injection
3:39 Hardcoded secrets
4:03 Broken access control
4:29 Insecure deserialization
5:02 The structural problem with AI code review
5:48 Shift left and static analysis
7:18 SonarQube Cloud demo
7:48 Taint analysis explained
8:41 SonarQube MCP — agentic fix
9:46 The loop: write → verify → fix → confirm

Категория
AI инструменты
Комментариев нет.