🔓 45% of AI-generated code contains a security vulnerability.
Veracode tested this properly: 80 curated coding tasks, run across 100+ large language models. Not vibes — a benchmark.
Results:
▪️ 45% of generated code introduced an OWASP Top 10 vulnerability
▪️ Java: 70%+ failure rate - the worst by far
▪️ Python, C#, JavaScript: 38 - 45%
▪️ Cross-site scripting (CWE - 80): 86% failure rate
▪️ Log injection (CWE - 117): 88% failure rate
And the line that should worry you most:
"Despite advances in LLMs' ability to generate syntactically correct code, security performance has not kept up, remaining unchanged over time." Models got dramatically better at writing code that works. They did not get better at writing code that's safe. Those two things improved on completely different curves, and almost nobody noticed. Because here's the thing about a security bug: it passes your tests. It passes code review. It works perfectly - right up until it doesn't.
🔖 Save this. Six things to check in every piece of AI code you ship:
1️⃣ Any user input rendered to a page → is it escaped? (XSS)
2️⃣ Any user input reaching the database → parameterized query, never string concatenation (SQL injection)
3️⃣ Any user input written to logs → stripped of newlines (log injection)
4️⃣ Any file path built from user input → validated against traversal (../)
5️⃣ Any secret, key, or token → in env vars, never in the code it just wrote
6️⃣ Any dependency it imported → does that package actually exist? (AI invents package names, and attackers register them)
Number 6 is the one nobody checks. It has a name now: slopsquatting.
📎 Source: Veracode 2025 GenAI Code Security Report
Please send this to the person on your team who ships AI code the fastest.
#tools @codingforweb
Veracode tested this properly: 80 curated coding tasks, run across 100+ large language models. Not vibes — a benchmark.
Results:
▪️ 45% of generated code introduced an OWASP Top 10 vulnerability
▪️ Java: 70%+ failure rate - the worst by far
▪️ Python, C#, JavaScript: 38 - 45%
▪️ Cross-site scripting (CWE - 80): 86% failure rate
▪️ Log injection (CWE - 117): 88% failure rate
And the line that should worry you most:
"Despite advances in LLMs' ability to generate syntactically correct code, security performance has not kept up, remaining unchanged over time." Models got dramatically better at writing code that works. They did not get better at writing code that's safe. Those two things improved on completely different curves, and almost nobody noticed. Because here's the thing about a security bug: it passes your tests. It passes code review. It works perfectly - right up until it doesn't.
🔖 Save this. Six things to check in every piece of AI code you ship:
1️⃣ Any user input rendered to a page → is it escaped? (XSS)
2️⃣ Any user input reaching the database → parameterized query, never string concatenation (SQL injection)
3️⃣ Any user input written to logs → stripped of newlines (log injection)
4️⃣ Any file path built from user input → validated against traversal (../)
5️⃣ Any secret, key, or token → in env vars, never in the code it just wrote
6️⃣ Any dependency it imported → does that package actually exist? (AI invents package names, and attackers register them)
Number 6 is the one nobody checks. It has a name now: slopsquatting.
📎 Source: Veracode 2025 GenAI Code Security Report
Please send this to the person on your team who ships AI code the fastest.
#tools @codingforweb
⚡️ Only 31% of developers use AI agents. That gap is about to decide a lot.
Buried in the Stack Overflow 2026 survey is a split almost nobody is talking about - and it's much bigger than the "do you use AI" question. Autocomplete is universal now. 84% use it. It's table stakes.
Agents - tools that run tasks, edit multiple files, execute commands - are not:
▪️ 31% of developers use agents
▪️ 38% have no plans to start
▪️ 69% of agent users report increased productivity
▪️ PR turnaround among them: 9.6 days → 2.4 days
That last number is a 4x change in how fast work moves through a team. Not a tweak. A different operating speed.
Also from the same survey, on tooling:
▪️ VS Code: 75.9%
▪️ Cursor: 17.9% - the fastest first-year debut the survey has ever recorded
▪️ Claude Code: 9.7%
The pattern is clear: developers aren't replacing their editor. They're adding an agent next to it. Here's why this matters more than the productivity number. When 69% of one group ships four times faster, that group isn't just more productive. Within a year, it's the group that sets what "normal output" means - for teams, for hiring, for what a job posting expects you to know. The gap isn't between people who use AI and people who don't. That question is settled. It's between people who let AI complete a line and people who let it complete a task.
🎯 Do this week:
Take one boring task you've been avoiding - a test suite nobody wrote, a migration, a refactor across five files. Give it to an agent end-to-end. Don't help it. Watch where it fails.
You'll learn more in one afternoon than from fifty tutorials, and you'll know exactly which half of that 31/69 split you belong in.
📎 Source: Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2026
Forward to someone still using AI only for autocomplete.
#tools @codingforweb
Buried in the Stack Overflow 2026 survey is a split almost nobody is talking about - and it's much bigger than the "do you use AI" question. Autocomplete is universal now. 84% use it. It's table stakes.
Agents - tools that run tasks, edit multiple files, execute commands - are not:
▪️ 31% of developers use agents
▪️ 38% have no plans to start
▪️ 69% of agent users report increased productivity
▪️ PR turnaround among them: 9.6 days → 2.4 days
That last number is a 4x change in how fast work moves through a team. Not a tweak. A different operating speed.
Also from the same survey, on tooling:
▪️ VS Code: 75.9%
▪️ Cursor: 17.9% - the fastest first-year debut the survey has ever recorded
▪️ Claude Code: 9.7%
The pattern is clear: developers aren't replacing their editor. They're adding an agent next to it. Here's why this matters more than the productivity number. When 69% of one group ships four times faster, that group isn't just more productive. Within a year, it's the group that sets what "normal output" means - for teams, for hiring, for what a job posting expects you to know. The gap isn't between people who use AI and people who don't. That question is settled. It's between people who let AI complete a line and people who let it complete a task.
🎯 Do this week:
Take one boring task you've been avoiding - a test suite nobody wrote, a migration, a refactor across five files. Give it to an agent end-to-end. Don't help it. Watch where it fails.
You'll learn more in one afternoon than from fifty tutorials, and you'll know exactly which half of that 31/69 split you belong in.
📎 Source: Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2026
Forward to someone still using AI only for autocomplete.
#tools @codingforweb
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🎯 After 13 years of writing code, here's the only skill I'd optimise for now...
Every week someone asks me the same question: what's the point of learning to code if AI writes it? I used to give a long answer. I'll share a short one, and the 2026 data supports every part of it.
Look at what we know:
▪️ 84% of developers use AI - but only 3% highly trust its output
▪️ 66% say their #1 frustration is code that's "almost right"
▪️ 45% say debugging AI output takes longer than writing it themselves
▪️ 45% of AI-generated code ships with a security vulnerability
▪️ In a controlled trial, experts felt 20% faster and were 19% slower
Every single one of those numbers points to the same place. The bottleneck is no longer writing code. It's judging code. Producing a function is now free. Knowing whether that function is correct, safe, maintainable, and actually solving the right problem - that is the entire job now. It's what 97% of developers don't trust AI to do, and it's what nobody can outsource. So if I were starting today, I'd optimise for one thing:
👉 Read more code than you write.
Concretely, and this costs nothing:
1️⃣ Open a repo you use and read one file properly. Not skim - read it until you could explain every line to someone else.
2️⃣ Every time AI gives you code that works, ask it: "what's wrong with this?"
Then verify its answer yourself. It will be wrong sometimes. Catching that is the skill.
3️⃣ Break working code on purpose. Change one thing, predict the failure, check if you were right. Being right consistently is what expertise actually is.
4️⃣ Review a pull request in an open-source project. Badly, at first. Do it twenty times.
None of that is glamorous, none of it makes a good screenshot, and all of it compounds. The developers who'll be valuable in 2030 aren't the ones who prompt best. They're the ones who can look at code that runs perfectly and say, "This is wrong, and here's why." That was always the job. AI just deleted everything else.
💬 What do you think - is judgement really the bottleneck, or am I wrong here?
Forward this to someone who's wondering if it's still worth learning.
#learn @codingforweb
Every week someone asks me the same question: what's the point of learning to code if AI writes it? I used to give a long answer. I'll share a short one, and the 2026 data supports every part of it.
Look at what we know:
▪️ 84% of developers use AI - but only 3% highly trust its output
▪️ 66% say their #1 frustration is code that's "almost right"
▪️ 45% say debugging AI output takes longer than writing it themselves
▪️ 45% of AI-generated code ships with a security vulnerability
▪️ In a controlled trial, experts felt 20% faster and were 19% slower
Every single one of those numbers points to the same place. The bottleneck is no longer writing code. It's judging code. Producing a function is now free. Knowing whether that function is correct, safe, maintainable, and actually solving the right problem - that is the entire job now. It's what 97% of developers don't trust AI to do, and it's what nobody can outsource. So if I were starting today, I'd optimise for one thing:
👉 Read more code than you write.
Concretely, and this costs nothing:
1️⃣ Open a repo you use and read one file properly. Not skim - read it until you could explain every line to someone else.
2️⃣ Every time AI gives you code that works, ask it: "what's wrong with this?"
Then verify its answer yourself. It will be wrong sometimes. Catching that is the skill.
3️⃣ Break working code on purpose. Change one thing, predict the failure, check if you were right. Being right consistently is what expertise actually is.
4️⃣ Review a pull request in an open-source project. Badly, at first. Do it twenty times.
None of that is glamorous, none of it makes a good screenshot, and all of it compounds. The developers who'll be valuable in 2030 aren't the ones who prompt best. They're the ones who can look at code that runs perfectly and say, "This is wrong, and here's why." That was always the job. AI just deleted everything else.
💬 What do you think - is judgement really the bottleneck, or am I wrong here?
Forward this to someone who's wondering if it's still worth learning.
#learn @codingforweb
👏1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔓 45% of AI-generated code contains a security vulnerability.
Veracode tested this properly: 80 curated coding tasks, run across 100+ large language models. Not vibes — a benchmark.
Results:
▪️ 45% of generated code introduced an OWASP Top 10 vulnerability
▪️ Java: 70%+ failure rate - the worst by far
▪️ Python, C#, JavaScript: 38 - 45%
▪️ Cross-site scripting (CWE - 80): 86% failure rate
▪️ Log injection (CWE - 117): 88% failure rate
And the line that should worry you most:
"Despite advances in LLMs' ability to generate syntactically correct code, security performance has not kept up, remaining unchanged over time." Models got dramatically better at writing code that works. They did not get better at writing code that's safe. Those two things improved on completely different curves, and almost nobody noticed. Because here's the thing about a security bug: it passes your tests. It passes code review. It works perfectly - right up until it doesn't.
🔖 Save this. Six things to check in every piece of AI code you ship:
1️⃣ Any user input rendered to a page → is it escaped? (XSS)
2️⃣ Any user input reaching the database → parameterized query, never string concatenation (SQL injection)
3️⃣ Any user input written to logs → stripped of newlines (log injection)
4️⃣ Any file path built from user input → validated against traversal (../)
5️⃣ Any secret, key, or token → in env vars, never in the code it just wrote
6️⃣ Any dependency it imported → does that package actually exist? (AI invents package names, and attackers register them)
Number 6 is the one nobody checks. It has a name now: slopsquatting.
📎 Source: Veracode 2025 GenAI Code Security Report
Please send this to the person on your team who ships AI code the fastest.
#tools @codingforweb
Veracode tested this properly: 80 curated coding tasks, run across 100+ large language models. Not vibes — a benchmark.
Results:
▪️ 45% of generated code introduced an OWASP Top 10 vulnerability
▪️ Java: 70%+ failure rate - the worst by far
▪️ Python, C#, JavaScript: 38 - 45%
▪️ Cross-site scripting (CWE - 80): 86% failure rate
▪️ Log injection (CWE - 117): 88% failure rate
And the line that should worry you most:
"Despite advances in LLMs' ability to generate syntactically correct code, security performance has not kept up, remaining unchanged over time." Models got dramatically better at writing code that works. They did not get better at writing code that's safe. Those two things improved on completely different curves, and almost nobody noticed. Because here's the thing about a security bug: it passes your tests. It passes code review. It works perfectly - right up until it doesn't.
🔖 Save this. Six things to check in every piece of AI code you ship:
1️⃣ Any user input rendered to a page → is it escaped? (XSS)
2️⃣ Any user input reaching the database → parameterized query, never string concatenation (SQL injection)
3️⃣ Any user input written to logs → stripped of newlines (log injection)
4️⃣ Any file path built from user input → validated against traversal (../)
5️⃣ Any secret, key, or token → in env vars, never in the code it just wrote
6️⃣ Any dependency it imported → does that package actually exist? (AI invents package names, and attackers register them)
Number 6 is the one nobody checks. It has a name now: slopsquatting.
📎 Source: Veracode 2025 GenAI Code Security Report
Please send this to the person on your team who ships AI code the fastest.
#tools @codingforweb
❤1🔥1
🔬 30-second experiment. Ask AI for npm packages — then check if they exist.
Do this right now, before reading further:
Open your AI of choice and ask:
"Give me 5 npm packages for validating and sanitising user input in Express."
Now take each name and run:
Count how many don't exist.
——————
I'll tell you what the research says, but do it yourself first — the number means nothing until it's your number. A study across 16 models generated 576,000 code samples. Of every package name the models recommended:
▪️ 19.7% did not exist
▪️ Open-source models: 21.7% hallucinated
▪️ Commercial models: 5.2%
▪️ Total unique fake package names produced: over 205,000
And the models are consistent about it. Ask the same question twice and you often get the same invented name — which is precisely what makes this exploitable.
Here's the part that turns a curiosity into a threat. A researcher noticed models kept recommending a package called
The attack has a name now: slopsquatting.
Register the package the AI invents, wait for people to install it.
🎯 Three seconds of defence:
Before you install anything an AI suggested, check the package page. Look at weekly downloads and the publish date. A real utility library with 40 downloads and a first release from last Tuesday is not a library. It's bait.
💬 Run the test and post your score in the comments. Which model, how many fake out of 5. I'm genuinely curious whether it's got better or worse.
📎 Source: "We Have a Package for You!" — USENIX Security
Forward this to someone who installs whatever the AI says.
#tools @codingforweb
Do this right now, before reading further:
Open your AI of choice and ask:
"Give me 5 npm packages for validating and sanitising user input in Express."
Now take each name and run:
npm view \<package-name>Count how many don't exist.
——————
I'll tell you what the research says, but do it yourself first — the number means nothing until it's your number. A study across 16 models generated 576,000 code samples. Of every package name the models recommended:
▪️ 19.7% did not exist
▪️ Open-source models: 21.7% hallucinated
▪️ Commercial models: 5.2%
▪️ Total unique fake package names produced: over 205,000
And the models are consistent about it. Ask the same question twice and you often get the same invented name — which is precisely what makes this exploitable.
Here's the part that turns a curiosity into a threat. A researcher noticed models kept recommending a package called
huggingface-cli. It didn't exist. So he registered it — empty, harmless, as a test. It got over 30,000 downloads in three months. Nobody attacked anyone. He just put a name where the hallucination pointed, and thousands of developers installed it because their AI told them to.The attack has a name now: slopsquatting.
Register the package the AI invents, wait for people to install it.
🎯 Three seconds of defence:
Before you install anything an AI suggested, check the package page. Look at weekly downloads and the publish date. A real utility library with 40 downloads and a first release from last Tuesday is not a library. It's bait.
💬 Run the test and post your score in the comments. Which model, how many fake out of 5. I'm genuinely curious whether it's got better or worse.
📎 Source: "We Have a Package for You!" — USENIX Security
Forward this to someone who installs whatever the AI says.
#tools @codingforweb
💭 Tutorial hell is dead. Welcome to prompt hell 😵💫
You remember tutorial hell. You watch a 12-hour course, you follow along, everything works, you feel like you're learning. Then you open an empty file to build something yourself, and you have no idea what to type. That's mostly gone now. AI killed it. Nobody's stuck watching tutorials - you just describe what you want, and something appears.
So we invented a worse version 😈
Prompt hell is this: you ship things. Real things. A working app, a dashboard, an API that people use. From the outside, you look like a developer who's doing fine. And you cannot build anything without AI. Not "it's slower without it." Cannot 😣
The difference from tutorial hell is what makes it dangerous. In tutorial hell, you knew you were stuck - the blank file told you every day. In prompt hell, everything works, so there's no signal, no discomfort, nothing telling you something's wrong. You can stay there for two years.
Here's the test. Three questions, answer honestly:
1️⃣ Can you read a function you shipped last month and explain every line - not what it does, but why it's written that way?
2️⃣ When something breaks, is your first move to think, or to paste the error?
3️⃣ Could you build a small version of your last project with no AI at all - badly, slowly, but finish it? If it's no, no, no - that's prompt hell. It's not a character flaw. It's what happens when the tool removes the struggle, and the struggle was the part that taught you.
I'm not going to tell you to stop using AI. That advice is useless, and nobody follows it.
What actually works is narrower:
🔹 Write first, then ask. Attempt it yourself for ten minutes. Badly is fine. Then bring the AI in. The ten minutes is where the learning happens - everything after is editing.
🔹 Never accept code you can't explain. Not "I trust it." Explain it. If you can't, ask the AI to explain it, then check the explanation against the docs. It's wrong more often than you'd like.
🔹 Break things on purpose. Take working code, change one thing, predict what fails, check. Being right consistently is expertise. There's no other definition.
🔹 Once a week, build something small with nothing. No AI, no Stack Overflow. Thirty minutes. It'll be humbling the first few times. That humbling is the measurement you no longer get anywhere else. The developers who'll matter in five years aren't the ones who refused to use
AI, and they're not the ones who used it most. They're the ones who kept the struggle on purpose, after it stopped being mandatory.
Nobody's going to make you do that. That's the whole problem - and the whole opportunity.
💬 Honest answers only: how did you score on the three questions?
Forward this to someone who's shipping fast and quietly worried about it.
#learn @codingforweb
You remember tutorial hell. You watch a 12-hour course, you follow along, everything works, you feel like you're learning. Then you open an empty file to build something yourself, and you have no idea what to type. That's mostly gone now. AI killed it. Nobody's stuck watching tutorials - you just describe what you want, and something appears.
So we invented a worse version 😈
Prompt hell is this: you ship things. Real things. A working app, a dashboard, an API that people use. From the outside, you look like a developer who's doing fine. And you cannot build anything without AI. Not "it's slower without it." Cannot 😣
The difference from tutorial hell is what makes it dangerous. In tutorial hell, you knew you were stuck - the blank file told you every day. In prompt hell, everything works, so there's no signal, no discomfort, nothing telling you something's wrong. You can stay there for two years.
Here's the test. Three questions, answer honestly:
1️⃣ Can you read a function you shipped last month and explain every line - not what it does, but why it's written that way?
2️⃣ When something breaks, is your first move to think, or to paste the error?
3️⃣ Could you build a small version of your last project with no AI at all - badly, slowly, but finish it? If it's no, no, no - that's prompt hell. It's not a character flaw. It's what happens when the tool removes the struggle, and the struggle was the part that taught you.
I'm not going to tell you to stop using AI. That advice is useless, and nobody follows it.
What actually works is narrower:
🔹 Write first, then ask. Attempt it yourself for ten minutes. Badly is fine. Then bring the AI in. The ten minutes is where the learning happens - everything after is editing.
🔹 Never accept code you can't explain. Not "I trust it." Explain it. If you can't, ask the AI to explain it, then check the explanation against the docs. It's wrong more often than you'd like.
🔹 Break things on purpose. Take working code, change one thing, predict what fails, check. Being right consistently is expertise. There's no other definition.
🔹 Once a week, build something small with nothing. No AI, no Stack Overflow. Thirty minutes. It'll be humbling the first few times. That humbling is the measurement you no longer get anywhere else. The developers who'll matter in five years aren't the ones who refused to use
AI, and they're not the ones who used it most. They're the ones who kept the struggle on purpose, after it stopped being mandatory.
Nobody's going to make you do that. That's the whole problem - and the whole opportunity.
💬 Honest answers only: how did you score on the three questions?
Forward this to someone who's shipping fast and quietly worried about it.
#learn @codingforweb
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
More interesting facts about the coding on my YT channel :)
https://www.youtube.com/@codingforweb-official
Videos are generated with AI, but I wrote the stories. This is my first time producing video content with AI, so don't judge me too harshly. Need your support, guys 🙏
https://www.youtube.com/@codingforweb-official
Videos are generated with AI, but I wrote the stories. This is my first time producing video content with AI, so don't judge me too harshly. Need your support, guys 🙏
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Coddytech got a fresh new look!
Check it out and also grab an 🎁 Exclusive Coddy promo code codingforweb20.
Grab it and start learning/playing 👇
https://coddytech.net
Check it out and also grab an 🎁 Exclusive Coddy promo code codingforweb20.
Grab it and start learning/playing 👇
https://coddytech.net
Web Dev and AI News pinned «Coddytech got a fresh new look! Check it out and also grab an 🎁 Exclusive Coddy promo code codingforweb20. Grab it and start learning/playing 👇 https://coddytech.net»