undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTeMPOraL11mo ago0 comments

That's not fault of MCP though, that's the fault of vendors peddling their MCPs while clinging to the SaaS model.

Yes, MCP is a way to streamline giving LLMs ability to run arbitrary code on your machine, however indirectly. It's meant to be used on "your side of the airlock", where you trust the things that run. Obviously it's too powerful for it to be used with third-party tools you neither trust nor control; it's not that different than downloading random binaries from the Internet.

I suppose it's good to spell out the risks, but it doesn't make sense blaming MCP itself, because those risks are fundamental aspects of the features it provides.

0 comments

kmacdough11mo ago

It's not blame, but it's a striking reality that needs to be kept at the forefront.

It introduces a substantial set of novel failure modes, like cross-tool shadowing, which aren't obvious to most folks. Making use of any externally developed tooling — even open source tools on internal architecture — requires more careful consideration and analysis than most would expect. Despite the warnings, there will certainly be major breaches on these lines.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsTeMPOraL11mo ago0 comments

That's not fault of MCP though, that's the fault of vendors peddling their MCPs while clinging to the SaaS model.

I suppose it's good to spell out the risks, but it doesn't make sense blaming MCP itself, because those risks are fundamental aspects of the features it provides.

0 comments

kmacdough11mo ago

It's not blame, but it's a striking reality that needs to be kept at the forefront.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse