title: [Log4J] Addressing AI-slop in security reports
author: u/BlueGoliath
contenttype: redditpost
publication: r/programming
published: 2026-02-27T15:28:10+00:00
sourceurl: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1rg9p7u/log4jaddressingaislopinsecurityreports/
word_count: 19
Link: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/discussions/4052
Score: 162 | Comments: 11 | Subreddit: r/programming
Top Comments
u/Bartfeels24 (84 pts):
I got burned by a ChatGPT-generated security advisory last year that confidently recommended disabling logging entirely instead of updating the package, and it took me three hours of actual research to figure out what the real fix was. The worst part wasn't the bad advice but that it sounded authoritative enough that I almost trusted it before checking the actual CVE.
u/Bartfeels24 (79 pts):
Watched a vendor's "AI-enhanced" security scanner flag log4j as critical in a codebase that never even imports the library, so now I'm skeptical of anything claiming to use ML for vulnerability detection.
u/ScottContini (13 pts):
Reports from reputable researchers should be prioritised.
u/dragneelfps (95 pts):
Fuck AI
u/ruibranco (6 pts):
The log4j false positives are a classic pattern match without understanding. A model sees "log4j" anywhere in the repo and fires, whether it's an actual import, a comment, a test fixture, or a config referencing something else entirely. Actual reachability analysis is hard; vibes-based flagging is not.