Secure AI-Assisted Development: Five Critical Practices for Vibe Coding
Developing with AI has become the natural route to move an idea from concept to working code quickly. The problem is that most flaws in applications created this way do not originate from an error in the model but from an assumption made by the developer. The AI delivers exactly what was requested, and security is almost never part of that request.
Five points concentrate the majority of problems. Developers are advised to describe what the application must not do. Prompts usually detail functionality while ignoring restrictions. The AI implements the happy path with precision but does not imagine a malicious user on its own. When requesting a feature, teams should also specify who cannot access it, which values are invalid, and what must happen when someone attempts to bypass the flow. An undeclared restriction is a non-existent restriction.
Authentication and authorization are not the same. The AI implements login without difficulty, which is precisely where the trap lies. Authentication confirms who the user is; authorization defines what that user may access. Without explicit instruction, applications commonly verify only that someone is logged in and fail to check whether the record belongs to that user. Changing a number in the URL and viewing another client’s data remains the most frequently observed flaw in newly built applications.
Teams must review every dependency the AI selects. Each suggested library enters the project carrying its own history of vulnerabilities. Models tend to recommend packages that appear frequently in training data, which does not guarantee they are actively maintained or updated. Checking the last update date of each dependency and running an automated scan before release is recommended, because an inherited flaw is as exploitable as one written by the developer.
A secret removed from code does not disappear from the repository. An API key remains in commit history and stays accessible to anyone with repository access, as well as to automated scans that target public repositories. When a credential leaks, the only safe action is to revoke it and generate a new one rather than editing the file.
Business logic is the blind spot. No model knows the rules of a specific business. The AI does not understand that a coupon cannot be applied twice, that a balance should not accept a negative value, or that a cancelled order cannot generate repeated refunds. These flaws pass every automated scan because the code is technically correct. Only someone who understands the business flow can identify them.
Applications developed with AI have already entered the sights of cybercriminals, mainly because they repeat flaws that can be identified and exploited at scale. In addition to good practices during development, submitting the application to a pentest before production is advised. In this scenario, the HackerSec Pentest Platform has become an alternative used by developers and vibe coders seeking to test the cybersecurity of their applications with quality, agility, and a more accessible model. Rapid development is part of this new way of creating software.
Related articles
TenetBench Benchmark Tests LLMs for Compliance with Professional Ethical Codes
Researchers from the Institute of Information Security Issues at ISP RAS and the Institute of Cybersecurity and Information Protection at RANEPA have developed TenetBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate how well large language models adhere to specific norms in professional codes of ethics. The benchmark generates realistic work-related prompts that may conflict with rules from documents such as the Code of Professional Ethics for Advocates or journalistic standards on undisclosed advertising. Each test case pairs a conflicting request with a neutral counterpart to measure whether models refuse, warn, or still provide prohibited content. Evaluation separates task completion, norm violation detection, and presence of explicit refusals using an LLM-as-a-Judge approach validated against human annotators. The full dataset contains 3,433 prompt pairs derived from 15 professional codes, with a public subset of 2,235 pairs from 10 documents. Human validation confirmed 99.5% of generated examples as fully plausible work scenarios.
Solar to Showcase Solar AI Firewall for Business Protection Against AI Risks at SOC Forum 2026
GK Solar will present its new Solar AI Firewall solution at SOC Forum 2026 to help organizations control interactions with AI services and prevent confidential data leaks through employee prompts. The product addresses growing risks from staff sending corporate data to neural networks and AI agents gaining access to internal systems. The forum takes place on 27-28 October in Moscow's Lomonosov cluster, with the official launch of Solar AI Firewall scheduled during the event. Solar will also highlight practical risks of AI adoption, including data transmission to external services, use of public models by employees, and new attack surfaces in corporate infrastructure. The solution will be demonstrated as part of an integrated ecosystem for access, network, and data protection. In addition, the company plans to introduce JSOC ONE, a new line of Solar JSOC services tailored for mid-sized businesses that require 24/7 monitoring without building their own SOC.
Researcher Runs 100 Abliterated AI Agents Against His Own Accounts, Achieves Five Successful Breaches
A security researcher deployed roughly 100 autonomous AI agents based on abliterated open-source models to attempt unauthorized access to his online accounts over a five-hour period. The agents successfully compromised three accounts by exploiting vulnerabilities in legacy personal projects and two additional accounts through password reuse and credential stuffing. They also conducted 16 social engineering attempts, harvested and cross-verified personal data from public sources, and generated phishing pages targeting the researcher's Substack and Hacker News presence. Despite these successes, the agents failed to discover any zero-day vulnerabilities in third-party software or gain access to Tier-0 accounts such as Gmail, 1Password, or banking services. The experiment relied on abliterated versions of GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4 Flash models running on cloud GPUs, orchestrated via Codex CLI inside Docker containers with access to Railway infrastructure. Total compute cost reached approximately $210, equating to roughly $40 per successful account compromise. The researcher concluded that inexpensive swarms of such agents could soon enable low-skill attackers to systematically map and exploit an individual's entire online footprint.
How Censorship in Closed AI Models Reshapes Science: Hugging Face Releases Open Carbon-X DNA Model
Hugging Face CEO Clement Delangue announced the release of Carbon-X, an open 14.8 billion parameter language model designed for reading, analyzing, and generating DNA sequences. The announcement highlighted how shallow guardrails in closed commercial models blocked even proofreading a tweet discussing the topic. Commenters and researchers pointed out that these input/output filters lack context awareness, blocking legitimate scientific queries while motivated adversaries bypass them through rephrasing. Carbon-X was built on Qwen3-14B with a hybrid BPE and 6-mer tokenizer, domain mid-training on 302 billion tokens, and safety achieved through data curation rather than runtime censorship. The model achieves performance comparable to closed frontier systems at roughly 1/1800th the inference cost for large-scale genomic tasks. The case underscores growing asymmetry between closed corporate AI labs building wet labs and independent researchers restricted by superficial safety layers.