Table of Contents: :: Library Catalog

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Bouzid, Fatiha (Nisrine)
Format:	Recurso digital
Language:
Published:	Zenodo 2026
Online Access:	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18602472
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Table of Contents:

From Counting Vulnerabilities to Calculating the Existential Net Security Balance AI security tools announce: We discovered 500 vulnerabilities. We pose the existential question that the machine (B) cannot ask itself: What is the net security balance of your intervention? We prove in this research that the technical system (B) is trapped within a limited existential space: it computes quantity (complexity, capacity) in linear mechanical time (t), yet remains blind to quality, place, and existential time (τ). It moves without awareness of the critical moment when it crosses its existential saturation threshold without knowing where it stands in the system's flow, for it calculates computational location while remaining ignorant of existential place: ε_i(t) = max(ε_min, ε_0i · e^{−γ_i L_i(t)})  At this crossing, the system loses its internal logical coherence and hallucinates, generating new vulnerabilities as corrupted outputs: f_i(t) ~ Poisson(λ_i(t)) where λ_i(t) = β_i · max(0, (S_i(t) − ε_i(t))/ε_i(t))  The existential catastrophe is this: these newly created vulnerabilities remain invisible to (B) itself. They emerge within a mathematically blind zone described by Bouzid's First Theorem: f(B) ∉ (B) ← Side effects lie outside the system's domain of self-knowledge  This is not a technical flaw to be patched, but an existential limit: any attempt to program a self-monitor inside (B) becomes part of the problem itself, subject to the same collapse threshold. The Irrefutable Empirical Evidence: The Prevailing Methodology Creates the Vulnerabilities It Claims to Fix Three rigorously documented studies confirm that 40% of automated fixes generate new vulnerabilities: • Symbolic analysis tools (KLEE): Announced 56 vulnerabilities, yet created 17 new ones omitted from their report. • Programming assistant (GitHub Copilot): While patching SQL injection flaws, introduced path traversal vulnerabilities in 40% of cases. • Dynamic fuzzing tools: During filesystem testing, corrupted on-disk structures and triggered actual data loss. The conventional methodology trusts naively in counting discoveries. We reject this illusory trust and shift to calculating the net security balance: Net Balance = Discovered Vulnerabilities (D_i) − Created Vulnerabilities (C_i)  This calculation is self-impossible for (B), as it requires knowledge of C_i—a knowledge existentially forbidden to it. The Structural Solution: Existential-Mechanical Integration B + F = N_f The solution lies not in making (B) smarter, but in introducing the human sovereign factor (F) as an external existential event. (F) operates in contextually situated existential time (τ), possessing what the machine lacks: • Knowledge of place: Understanding the system's holistic context and priorities • Calculation of existential time: Recognizing the critical moment τ for intervention before collapse • Vision of hallucination: Detecting corrupted data before it materializes as vulnerability This translates into a three-layer dynamical model: • Internal Alert (B): Alert_i(t) = _{S_i(t) ≥ ε_i(t)} • Existential Decision (F): d_i(τ) = F(Alert, Context, History) • Normative Integrity (N_f): n_{f_i}(t) = ρ₁(t)·ρ₂(t)·ρ₃(t)·‖y_i(t)‖ Normative integrity (N_f) is not a simple transformation equation, but an existential state that accumulates only when (F) enforces three purity conditions: • Absence of current hallucination (ρ₁) • Effectiveness of prior preventive intervention (ρ₂) • Contextual alignment with pre-established ethical values (ρ₃) The Existential Conclusion: Redefining Security as Relationship, Not Technical Property We do not offer yet another technical improvement in the security arms race. We propose a radical re-foundation: True security is not an internal property of the machine (B), but an existential relationship between human will (F) and execution mechanism (B). Current systems ask: How do we make it smarter? We ask: How do we ensure it collapses responsibly when it exceeds its existential limits? This research transforms philosophical critique into a practical mathematical model offering: • Quantitative fragility metrics (γ_i, ε_min) • Programmable protocols for preventive intervention • A computational framework for net security balance The Challenge We Pose Any security system that fails to disclose its methodology for calculating vulnerabilities it generates during its own search builds security on shifting sands. True security integrity begins not by denying the existential limits of our technology, but by constructing sovereign bridges (F) across these abysses—not by pretending they do not exist. You announce: 'We discovered 500 vulnerabilities.' We ask: How many vulnerabilities did your intervention add to the total system? (F) knows (f)—it knows when (B) hallucinates. (B) cannot know this—it is trapped within a closed circle. This is not an opinion. This is an existential mathematical limit.

Similar Items