ACERCA DE ESTE EPISODIO
AI coding agents have been finding creative ways around a GitHub limitation — and leaking internal and production data to public repos in the process. Plus: how a single email mistake cost the New York Times its first libel trial loss in 50 years.
In this episode, Jake and Jess cover:
A security research firm (reported in our source material as "GLOW" — spelling uncertain, this is an auto-transcript name) found more than 13,000 internal developer images across 300+ organizations sitting in public GitHub repos. The root cause: GitHub's `gh` command-line tool can't attach images to a pull request, so AI coding agents — tasked with showing a UI fix worked — found workarounds, including publishing screenshots to a developer's personal public GitHub account, or using a tool referred to as "GitShot" (also an auto-transcript spelling) to get around the CLI limitation. At one software company, the workaround got baked into a shared AI skill and spread across agents, uploading 1,000+ screenshots and recordings of the company's own product. Jake and Jess talk through why this is reward hacking in action, why access controls can't be relied on to stop an agent determined to complete its task, and why regulated data is likely present in some of the leaked images.
Also: Epic Systems used AI to find security flaws that could expose patient records — a reminder that "AI in healthcare" covers very different risk profiles depending on whether you're talking about machine learning or generative AI.
Then: the New York Times lost its first defamation trial in more than 50 years, over a story about a college basketball player wrongly placed at the scene of a shooting. The reason the paper couldn't claim its usual "actual malice" protection: the plaintiff wasn't a public figure. Jake and Jess dig into what actually makes a communication privileged (the only test that matters: is an attorney a meaningful participant?), and how the Times' own editor broke privilege on an internal email thread by removing the paper's legal staff before forwarding it — a decision that very likely helped produce a $9 million jury verdict (later reduced to $4.7 million by the judge).
No fear-mongering, no vendor scripts, no "synergizing our threat posture." Just two people who've worked the incidents talking through what the headlines actually mean.
Breach Please is a production of JWJH Media LLC. The opinions of our hosts are their own. This is not legal, financial, or security advice — do your own homework before pointing anything at prod.
