<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Vision on Samarthya</title><link>https://samarthya.me/categories/vision/</link><description>Recent content in Vision on Samarthya</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>© Samarthya 2018-2026. All rights reserved.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 20:32:15 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://samarthya.me/categories/vision/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>SSDLC when exploits are cheap: a working concept</title><link>https://samarthya.me/posts/ssdlc-in-the-age-of-ai-exploits/</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 20:32:15 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://samarthya.me/posts/ssdlc-in-the-age-of-ai-exploits/</guid><description>&lt;div class="lead text-neutral-500 dark:text-neutral-400 !mb-9 text-xl"&gt;&#10; A fire inspection once a year works when fires are rare. When sparks are falling every day, you need smoke&#10;detectors in every room, a sprinkler that fixes the small ones by itself, and a person who decides what to do&#10;about the big ones. That is what a secure development life cycle has to become.&#10;&lt;/div&gt;&#10;&#10;&lt;p&gt;These are my notes for a question I keep coming back to: &lt;strong&gt;how do you keep shipping software when new&#10;vulnerabilities arrive faster than you can fix them, and attackers can use an LLM to turn a CVE description into&#10;a working exploit?&lt;/strong&gt; There is no single standard answer. What follows is the concept I would build, with the&#10;evidence behind each choice and the parts where I am still unsure.&lt;/p&gt;</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://samarthya.me/posts/ssdlc-in-the-age-of-ai-exploits/feature.png"/></item></channel></rss>