The Era of Software Quality, or the Era of Ostriches?

Humans are bad at writing secure code, and GNOME developers are no exception. GNOME is primarily written using unsafe programming languages where simple mistakes in our code lead to devastating consequences for our users, and we make these mistakes all the time. No matter how much we try, GNOME developers will fail write secure code when using unsafe languages like C, C++, or Vala: it’s just too hard for even experienced developers to do properly. The above paragraph is taken from the abstracts of my GUADEC 2024 and 2025 talks. At the time, I thought failure was inevitable: we humans were so bad at writing software that we had no chance to do it properly, and I certainly would not have trusted an AI to do better than a human. But the landscape today is completely different than last year. AI has improved considerably, and offers a magic fairy wand solution to this problem: we can now simply ask a language model to look for vulnerabilities in our software. They are quite good at this. There is zero hope of maintaining quality software in 2026 without AI vulnerability scanning. Any claims to the contrary are unserious and delusional. The tremendous quantity of bugs found in our best-maintained projects, like GLib and fwupd, should speak for itself. Failure to scan our projects is an unfair disservice to our users. If we don’t find the vulnerabilities by scanning projects ourselves, attackers certainly will, because the Linux user base has increased to the point that Linux users are finally numerous enough to be worth targeting. Meanwhile, AI has made it easier than ever to build working exploits, which was previously unheard of. Already resolved all the detectable vulnerabilities? Then ask the AI to look for non-security bugs as well, to further improve quality. GNOME code is generally much better than it used to be, but there remains considerable room for improvement. For the first time in history, we now have the opportunity to improve software quality to a degree that was never realistic before. Have you heard that most AI bug reports are “slop?” Not so in 2026. That was true for most of 2025, but the quality of AI-generated vulnerability reports has drastically improved. That is not to say that we no longer have problems with bad vulnerability reports, but in general, nowadays most of them are pretty good. (Daniel Stenberg reports the same pattern for curl.) AI-generated vulnerability reports have nevertheless introduced many undesirable impacts on GNOME maintainers. They are usually annoyingly verbose and unnecessarily detailed. They often exaggerate the severity of the problem, or make misleading or irrelevant claims. They are occasionally incorrect. Sometimes they include outright fabricated data, such as fake stack traces (which is not the norm, but sadly also not uncommon). A good human reviewer will notice and resolve most of the above problems before creating a bug report on your issue tracker, but often problems are reported by inexperienced humans who do not actually know what they are looking at and simply copy/paste everything blindly. Even when the generated issue report is good and avoids all of the above problems (which is rare), good vulnerability reports in sufficiently high quantity can still overwhelm volunteer maintainers. And even if reporters submit a merge request to resolve the problem so maintainers don’t have to (which is also rare), reviewing those merge requests is itself more unwelcome work for overworked maintainers. That all is to say: I understand the pain caused by the current wave of AI-generated issue reports. Nevertheless, they are essential and unavoidable. We have to learn to accept and deal with them, not stick our heads in the sand and ignore them. Some GNOME maintainers have adopted a policy prohibiting AI-generated content in issue reports. Do not do this. Nowadays, the overwhelming majority of vulnerability reports are AI-generated. Projects that choose to ban AI-generated content in issue reports might as well ban all vulnerability reports; the effect will be approximately the same. I propose the following: GNOME maintainers should rewrite their AI contribution policies to permit AI-generated vulnerability reports, as I previously requested four months ago. Projects that continue to prohibit AI-generated vulnerability reports are no longer suitable dependencies for GNOME, and should be developed someplace other than GNOME GitLab. We don’t have to tolerate bad issue reports, but AI use alone should not be disqualifying. Shouldn’t humans rewrite AI-generated bug reports? When I complain that maintainers should allow AI-generated vulnerability reports, the most common counterargument is that humans should read the AI’s report, understand it, and rewrite the entire thing to remove all AI-generated content. Some bug reporters actually voluntarily do this, but this is rare. Vulnerability reporting is a public service, not an obligation. If you ask a reporter to do any amount of extra work, they might be willing to do so, but it’s much more likely that they will either stop looking at your project and move on to something else, or continue looking at your project and publish the vulnerability reports someplace other than your issue tracker. Rewriting issue reports also does not scale. Let’s say you use AI to find 100 security bugs in a GNOME project, a number consistent with the results of actual scans (read on). Would you really spend months rewriting those bug reports before submitting them to upstream? Validating the AI’s claims, upstreaming the issue reports, and submitting merge requests is already a lot of work. Not many people would be willing to additionally rewrite all the issue reports. That’s more work than everything else combined, and is unrealistic. Even with just a small number of bugs, I would hesitate to spend much time rewriting an issue report because I have many other tasks I would rather spend my time on. At best, I might prepare a quick summary, but it won’t be as useful as a full report. The CVE Wave Hits GNOME The current wave of vulnerability reports is reflected in GNOME’s CVE issuance trends: YearGNOME CVEsGNOME CVEs Excluding GIMP, Gegl, libxml2, and libxslt202121142022146202313420243728202597492026 Year-to-date (2026-09-30)141742026 Normalized188 (141 * 4 / 3)99 (74 * 4 / 3) The trend here should be pretty clear. Until recently, not many people were reporting vulnerabilities in GNOME. That has changed. We are currently dealing with an order of magnitude more CVEs than just 3 years ago. AI is not the only reason for this; GNOME maintainers have also gotten a little better at flagging issues so that I add them to security tracking. But AI is the primary cause for the increase. (A few technical notes on this table. CVEs are classified by the year the issue was reported to GNOME, not by the year in the CVE identifier, so e.g. many CVE-2026 issues are counted in 2025. Vulnerabilities reported in 2026 which do not yet have CVEs are not counted, so you can think of the data as being accurate through roughly September 1; multiply the 2026 numbers by 4/3 to make them comparable to the prior years. I count only issues reported to GNOME Security, so any unreported CVEs do not count.) Although there are still 3 months left in 2026, we will never have data for the rest of the year because I have ended security tracking for new issue reports and nobody else has volunteered to do that work. These CVEs exist only because I request them myself, so I expect the number of CVEs to drastically decrease going forward. The CVE Wave Hits WebKitGTK A similar pattern holds for WebKitGTK: YearWebKitGTK CVEs2015175201657201715820181012019992020382021522022502023452024382025662026 Year-to-date (through WSA-2026-0006)305 CVEs are reported against the year they appeared in a WebKitGTK security advisory, not the year in the CVE ID. The large increase in 2026 is entirely due to AI analysis of Skia and ANGLE. WebKit bundles these libraries because they are not designed to be installed as system libraries, so their vulnerabilities should be counted the same as vulnerabilities in WebKit’s own code. Excluding Skia and ANGLE, there are actually only 21 other WebKitGTK CVEs so far this year, a significant decrease, but excluding CVEs in bundled code would not be fair. There has actually been a very large increase in WebKit security fixes this year, but this has not resulted in any increase in CVEs. Apple generally creates CVEs for flaws found by external researchers, not often for flaws found by WebKit developers, so the increase in security fixes is not reflected in the total number of CVEs. Only a small fraction of WebKit vulnerabilities receive CVEs. I had not previously noticed that the count of WebKitGTK CVEs had, until 2026, been decreasing over the past decade. I am not sure why. I also do not know how to explain the low number in 2016. Announcing the GNOME Bug Bounty Program and Announcing the End of the GNOME Bug Bounty Program My blog post to-do list says that I need to write a blog post announcing the creation of the GNOME Bug Bounty Program on the YesWeHack platform. Oops, too late. It’s already closed. (Once a task enters my to-do list, it can be a very long time before I get around to doing it.)