BLA
BLA (Blind LLM Agents) is the open-source Blue Defense MCP and CLI built to protect software artifacts against automated AI reverse-engineering workflows.
310 published CVE and GitHub advisories where code written with Claude, GitHub Copilot, Cursor and other AI coding tools introduced or exposed the vulnerability, each traced to the responsible commit.
SecurityPython · TypeScriptGitHub @HQ1995OnlineOwner unconfirmed
Have you tried it? One tap is enough. No sign-in needed.
No updates detected yet. GitHub releases will appear here.
Owners of public repositories under a personal GitHub account can sign in to verify ownership and manage the introduction themselves. No administrator approval is needed.
Sign in, generate a verification file, and commit it to this repository’s default branch within 30 minutes. Files on other branches or forks do not count. Then check the file below to manage the project without administrator approval. Keep the file to retain your access.
If needed, you will go to sign-in. After signing in, return here and press your chosen verification button again.
Run /nomorevibe verify in your project folder to verify ownership and manage the introduction yourself.
Verify in one minuteAsk about other verification options
Tracking vulnerabilities contributed by AI-written code
Translation pending
Taken from the repository README
Loading the full README.
Read the full README ↗A Georgia Tech SSLab catalog of public vulnerabilities whose root cause traces to AI-written code.
We start from disclosed GHSA and CVE advisories, not from a scan of every AI commit. A finding is published only when we can show three things on the same attack path: the AI-authored change, the vulnerable behavior, and the fix that closed it. Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, and similar tools all appear; the catalog is about the code they left behind, not a ranking of tools.
Browse the current catalog for cases and statistics. The catalog is a lower bound, not a census of every AI bug. Many AI-assisted changes never become a public advisory, and some that do leave a history we cannot recover.
What counts: AI introduced the flaw, exposed the vulnerable path, or left a security fix incomplete.
What does not: an AI marker, git blame, or model verdict on its own. We also do not claim that AI is riskier than human code. This dataset is not a rate comparison.
The longer writeup is on the site: How we verify.
A case looks wrong, or we missed one: open an issue or email [email protected].
MIT