Never gonna print you up
Comments on “Never gonna print you up”
Claim-checked. Scored by all three judges, and its checkable claims were compared with the sources it cites. How far stories are checked
A security researcher spent a week fuzzing and reverse engineering a Prusa MK4S 3D printer and reported 14 findings, including a remote code execution chain through the Prusa Connect command path (PFB-008, CVSS 8.1).
Why it ranked
No. 22 of 137 with a score of 0.68. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.91) and technical depth (0.90), lowest on audience breadth (0.48). Placed No. 22, No. 16 by score alone: the sixth Security story of the day (−0.060). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Detailed firmware security research on a 3D printer with RCE chain, validated by vendor and coordinated disclosure; strong technical substance, relevant to builders and security, though niche audience and some sprawling narrative.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- Detailed, reproducible security research demonstrates fourteen firmware defects, including hardware-confirmed network RCE, with methodology, code-level mechanisms, affected devices, coordinated disclosure, and concrete patch guidance.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.68total under rubric v2.3
- Significance0.63
- Reader interest0.81
- Audience breadth0.48
- Practical relevance0.69
- Substantiated0.88
- Technical depth0.90
- New information0.91
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.20
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.78 | 0.63 | 0.23 | +0.24 | +0.152 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.74 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.16 | +0.26 | +0.211 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.05 | +0.13 | +0.063 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.74 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.14 | +0.22 | +0.151 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.17 | +0.05 | +0.044 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.98 | 0.80 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.18 | +0.05 | +0.045 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.12 | +0.05 | +0.046 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.19 | −0.008 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.15 | −0.11 | −0.022 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.683 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.682 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-04/22/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-04/22.svg" alt="Ranked #22 on Rubric, 4 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Claim check
Claim check: 3 matches source · 3 no source given · 2 couldn’t check. Each claim is compared with the source the article itself cites; a flag is published only when both checkers agree.
No source givenNumber
The author's week of testing on his MK4S produced 14 findings and roughly 23 individual defects, including a chain ending in remote code execution on the printer's main controller.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “14 findings, roughly 23 individual defects, and a chain that ends with the printer's main controller running code I sent it over the network”
The source says No source to compare with.
Couldn’t checkCausal conclusion
In Prusa firmware, a 463-byte SEND_FILE_INFO path overflows a shared 512-byte buffer onto the planner's printer pointer because release builds drop the 104-byte path assert; this was confirmed on a physical MK4S.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “Release builds drop the 104-byte path assert, so a 463-byte path makes the filename write overflow a shared 512-byte buffer onto the planner's printer pointer”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: dixken.de/disclosures/pfb-008
No source givenCausal conclusion
The Prusa firmware carries no stack canary and no _FORTIFY_SOURCE, which turned the bounds slip into program-counter control instead of a simple crash.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “the firmware carries no stack canary and no _FORTIFY_SOURCE, which is what turned this bounds slip into actual program-counter (PC) control instead of a simple crash”
The source says No source to compare with.
Couldn’t checkNumber
PFB-008, the Connect SEND_FILE_INFO overflow, scores a preliminary CVSS of 8.1 High.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “It scores a preliminary 8.1 High”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: dixken.de/disclosures/pfb-008
Matches sourceNumber
PFB-013, the E2EE identity block heap overflow, was confirmed five times on hardware, giving reliable denial of service but not reliable code execution because the overflow landed in four different places across five runs.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “I confirmed it five times on hardware: it gives reliable denial of service but not reliable code execution, because the heap put the overflow in four different places across those…”
The source says “Across five runs, the overflow chunk lands at four distinct addresses spread over about 5.4 KiB”
Source cited by the article: dixken.de/disclosures/pfb-013
Matches sourceNumber
PFB-014: a 110-character client G-code overflows a 96-byte ring slot through an unguarded strcpy in _enqueue.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “A 110-character client G-code overflows a 96-byte ring slot with an unguarded strcpy in _enqueue”
The source says “GCodeQueue::_enqueue copies a client command into a fixed 96-byte ring slot with strcpy and no length check (queue.cpp:148”
Source cited by the article: dixken.de/disclosures/pfb-014
Matches sourceVersion
Prusa's fixes shipped in Buddy firmware 7.0.0, and every finding affects all fifteen printers it covers.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “Prusa's fixes shipped with Buddy firmware 7.0.0 (with 8.0.0 being the most recent one”
The source says “All findings are fixed in firmware 7.0.0 and later. One low-severity EEPROM defect, which needs physical access, is only partly fixed and we are reviewing it”
Source cited by the article: github.com/prusa3d/Prusa-Firmware-Buddy/releases/tag/v7.0.0
No source givenDate
Prusa acknowledged the report within one working day, and reproduced the findings on its own hardware.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “They answered within one working day, and the answer came from a real human with a name”
The source says No source to compare with.
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 3 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 4 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.