<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>NoHackingNoSecurity on After the Code</title><link>https://windshock.github.io/en/tags/nohackingnosecurity/</link><description>Recent content in NoHackingNoSecurity on After the Code</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.145.0</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://windshock.github.io/en/tags/nohackingnosecurity/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Before Blaming AI False Positives: The Security Debt of Generalist-Led Organizations</title><link>https://windshock.github.io/en/post/2026-10-21-ai-false-positives-security-debt/</link><pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://windshock.github.io/en/post/2026-10-21-ai-false-positives-security-debt/</guid><description>A Korean financial-sector AI code-analysis test reported 40–60% false positives. The deeper question is how technical expertise, validation workflows, budgets, and decision rights shape actual security outcomes.</description></item></channel></rss>