今日已更新 328 条资讯 | 累计 20300 条内容
关于我们

标签：#ens

找到 1403 篇相关文章

开源项目

🔥 OthmanAdi / planning-with-files - Persistent file-based planning for AI coding agents and long

GitHub热门项目 | Persistent file-based planning for AI coding agents and long-running agentic tasks. Crash-proof markdown plans that survive context loss and /clear, plus a deterministic completion gate and multi-agent shared state on disk. Manus-style. Works with Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, Kiro, OpenCode and 60+ agents via the SKILL.md standard. | Stars: 24,557 | 61 stars today | 语言: Python

2026-07-05 原文 →
AI 资讯

TraceTree: Mapping malware behavior to catch supply chain attacks

We just released an important update: retraining our Random Forest model on real malware behavior from the CIC-MalMem-2022 dataset. The challenge was mapping 58,000 complex memory dump traces into a clean 10-feature vector space that our syscall graph extractor produces. How it works: Sandbox target in Docker (network dropped) Trace every syscall with strace -t -f Parse into a NetworkX directed graph Extract 10 features (process count, network connections, file operations, severity scores, etc.) Feed into RandomForest for classification We also resolved module-level import cycles and pinned skops for safer model deserialization in production. Looking for collaborators who understand malware behavior, syscall parsing, or want to contribute detection rules. Open to issues and PRs. https://github.com/tejasprasad2008-afk/TraceTree

2026-07-05 原文 →
AI 资讯

Your SQS Queue Is Redelivering Messages Your Lambda Is Still Processing

Your order-processing Lambda starts sending duplicate confirmation emails. Not always — maybe one order in twenty. CloudWatch shows more invocations than messages published. The function code hasn't changed in weeks. What changed is that someone added a fraud check that pushed processing time from 25 seconds to around 45, and your SQS queue is still running the default 30-second visibility timeout. That combination is the whole bug. When a Lambda pulls a message from SQS, the message isn't deleted — it's hidden for the duration of the visibility timeout. If the function is still working when that window closes, SQS assumes the consumer died and hands the same message to another invocation. Now two Lambdas are processing the same order, both will "succeed," and both will send the email. Nothing errors. Nothing retries. There is no log line that says "this message was delivered twice because your timeouts are misconfigured." Infrawise ( npm ) flags this exact mismatch as a high-severity finding before it costs you an afternoon of staring at idempotency-free handler code. This post walks through why the bug is so hard to see, how the detection works, and how to keep an AI assistant from reintroducing it. Why you never catch this one yourself Three things make this misconfiguration nearly invisible: It passes every test. In local tests and staging, your handler processes a synthetic message in two seconds. The 30-second visibility window never comes close to expiring. The bug only exists under production conditions — real payload sizes, real downstream latency, cold starts stacking on top of slow dependencies. The defaults set the trap. SQS queues default to a 30-second visibility timeout. Lambda functions routinely get their timeout bumped to 60, 120, or 900 seconds as they grow. Nobody bumps the queue at the same time, because the two settings live in different consoles, different IaC resources, and usually different pull requests. The failure signature points elsewhe

2026-07-05 原文 →
AI 资讯

How we built KoshurLock Holmes: an AI detective for cyber attacks, and the night it almost broke me

The problem with a data breach is not finding evidence. It is connecting it. But let me start where I actually was: 4 AM, last day of the hackathon, staring at this in my terminal. RateLimitError: GroqException - Rate limit reached for model `llama-3.3-70b-versatile` on tokens per day (TPD): Limit 100000, Used 99787, Requested 1616. Please try again in 20m12s. Used 99,787 out of 100,000. My deployment was half done, my demo graph was empty on the server, and the free tier had 213 tokens left. The submission deadline was hours away. I had not slept. I had not eaten. My friends were asleep and I was swapping API keys like a gambler swapping chips. This post is the story of how we got there, and how it ended at 7 in the morning with the best sigh of relief I have ever taken. First, some honesty about how I got here When I joined my first WeMakeDevs hackathon, I did not believe in it. I thought it was one of those ordinary online events. Fake prizes, no follow-through, what would I even get out of it. I joined anyway, mostly out of boredom, got into the Discord, talked to people, made a few connections. I landed in the top 50. A few days later an email showed up: a free Claude Max subscription as a gift. I read it twice. I genuinely could not believe a hackathon had actually delivered something. So when this hackathon opened, I did not hesitate. I messaged my friends and said we are joining as a team this time. Three of us: me (Mehraan), Aqib, and Ubaid. The spark We spent the first evening in our group chat throwing ideas around and shooting most of them down. Then one of my friends dropped a thought that stuck: what happens after a company gets hacked? I started digging into it. The answer is honestly depressing. After a breach, the evidence is everywhere. VPN records. File access logs. The email gateway. Badge readers at the office doors. CCTV. HR notes. Anonymous tips. Each system tells one small piece of the story, and a human analyst has to stitch all of it togeth

2026-07-05 原文 →
AI 资讯

Your AI Forgets Everything. Here's How Cognee Fixes It.

Have you ever noticed this? You explain your project to an AI chatbot, have a great conversation, then come back later... and it asks you to explain everything again. Start a new chat, and it's like meeting you for the first time. This isn't a bug. It's how most AI models work—they don't remember past conversations on their own. That's where Cognee comes in. Instead of making AI start from scratch every time, it gives AI a way to remember what matters. Why does AI forget everything? Most AI models don't have long-term memory. Every time you start a new chat, the AI only knows what you send in that conversation. It doesn't remember your previous chats, your project, or your preferences unless you provide them again. A common solution is RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) . It stores your documents in a searchable database so the AI can look up relevant information when needed. RAG genuinely helps, but it only knows what sounds similar. It doesn't know "Priya" and "the payments lead" are the same person, or that this week's ticket shares a root cause with one from March. Similarity search finds neighbors — it doesn't understand relationships. That's where Cognee takes a different approach. What is Cognee? Cognee is an open-source memory layer for AI applications. Instead of making an AI start from scratch every time, Cognee helps it remember information across conversations. It can learn from your documents, files, websites, or notes and use that knowledge whenever it's needed. Unlike traditional RAG systems that mainly find similar text, Cognee also understands how different pieces of information are connected. That gives AI more accurate and meaningful answers. It's Apache-2.0, runs locally by default, and has 27k+ GitHub stars. How does it work? At a high level, the process is simple: flowchart LR A[Text, Files, URLs] --> B[remember()] B --> C[Cognee builds AI memory] C --> D[recall()] D --> E[AI answers using remembered knowledge] For example: "Alice bought a Pr

2026-07-05 原文 →
AI 资讯

LOOM: a language that proves what AI-written code is allowed to do

▶ Try it live (in your browser): https://umbraaeternaa.github.io/loom/play.html Built solo, in the open, from Ukraine 🇺🇦. The problem nobody can scale their way out of AI now writes a large and growing share of the code that runs in the world. The uncomfortable part isn't that the code is often wrong — it's that the same model frequently writes both the code and the tests that check it. When one intelligence authors the solution and the criteria, "it passed" quietly stops meaning "it's safe." The gate becomes foolable. You can make the model bigger, but a bigger model that grades its own homework is still grading its own homework. The honest answer isn't "trust a smarter model." It's: trust only what can be independently proven — and make that proof mechanical, not a matter of hope. That is the whole idea behind LOOM. What LOOM is LOOM is a small, open-source, effect-typed language that acts as a machine-checked trust layer for AI-written code. It doesn't just run code — it proves, at a gate, exactly what the code is allowed to do, before a single line executes. If the code lies about what it does, the compiler refuses it. The slogan is: AI proposes, the compiler disposes. Today it is a research kernel with 385 self-verifying checks, all green — every feature added only with an adversarial test, so the language can only ever get greener. There's a live browser playground where a stranger can paste a program and watch the checker accept or reject it in under a minute. What it can actually do Effect honesty. Every function declares its effects — Pure, IO, Net, Alloc, FFI, Rand. Declared effects must cover what the code actually does; the lie is caught transitively through calls, branches, recursion — not just straight-line code. Capabilities, not ambient power. A foreign call has no ambient authority — un-wrapped, it's refused. A seam is the only thing that grants authority, so (seam (Pure) (ffi untrusted)) makes that code's I/O physically impossible. Reinterpreting h

2026-07-05 原文 →
AI 资讯

purefetch: a fastfetch-style system info tool in Rust with zero dependencies

I like neofetch / fastfetch , but I wanted one with a genuinely empty dependency graph — nothing pulled from crates.io. So I built purefetch : a small system-info fetcher written entirely in Rust using only std plus raw Linux syscalls. Disclosure up front: purefetch was built largely with AI assistance (Claude Code). I directed the design, and every change was reviewed and tested — including running it on four architectures under QEMU — but most of the code is AI-generated. I'd rather be honest about that than pretend otherwise. _,met$$$$$gg. ooonea@unicorn ,g$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$P. ────────────── ,g$$P" """Y$$.". OS Debian GNU/Linux 13.5 (trixie) x86_64 ,$$P' `$$$. Host ThinkPad P53 (20QQS0JD01) ',$$P ,ggs. `$$b: Kernel 6.12.94+deb13-amd64 `d$$' ,$P"' . $$$ Uptime 6 days, 15 hours, 30 mins $$P d$' , $$P Packages 2477 (dpkg), 1 (flatpak) $$: $$. - ,d$$' Shell zsh 5.9 $$; Y$b._ _,d$P' Display 1920x1080 (eDP-1) Y$$. `.`"Y$$$$P"' DE GNOME 48.7 `$$b "-.__ WM Mutter (Wayland) `Y$$ Terminal kitty 0.41.1 `Y$$. CPU Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9850H @ 4.60 GHz `$$b. GPU Quadro RTX 3000 `Y$$b. Memory 15.28 GiB / 62.61 GiB (24%) `"Y$b._ Swap 0 B / 8.00 GiB (0%) `""" Disk (/) 8.52 GiB / 489.57 GiB (2%) Locale en_US.UTF-8 Battery 76% (Not charging) Zero dependencies, really No libc crate, no sysinfo , no nix , no color crate — nothing from crates.io. Almost everything is just reading and parsing /proc and /sys . The result is a single ~484 KiB binary that builds offline. The only things std can't do are statfs (disk usage) and ioctl (terminal size / tty check). Instead of pulling in a binding crate, those are issued as raw Linux syscalls via core::arch::asm! : #[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64" )] unsafe fn syscall3 ( n : usize , a1 : usize , a2 : usize , a3 : usize ) -> isize { let ret : isize ; core :: arch :: asm! ( "syscall" , inlateout ( "rax" ) n as isize => ret , in ( "rdi" ) a1 , in ( "rsi" ) a2 , in ( "rdx" ) a3 , out ( "rcx" ) _ , out ( "r11" ) _ , options ( nostack ), ); ret } Four arch

2026-07-04 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →