Vulns are a subset of bugs. What the above commenter is saying, is that some bugs don't belong to this category.

But not the other way around, which makes them different.

Actually, Mudge of the l0pht (and later DARPA) once famously made the claim that all bugs are security issues waiting to be exploited in some way (I’m probably paraphrasing). I kind of agree. Although, the bugs on this dump are indeed mostly pretty lame, which is exactly what I’ve seen you get a lot of when you let an llm go bug hunting with no human vetting and confirmation in the loop.

It’s possible/likely that whomever is running this experiment is keeping the non slop bugs to themselves. It’s probably what I’d do.

Peiter Zatko profits, personally and professionally, from conflating the two. Making such bold pronouncements is a way for him to stay relevant.

Also, I've known some thoroughly unimpressive people who have affiliated themselves with DARPA. I wouldn't use it as an appeal to authority.

Such claims can both be true and pointless. For those of us who have to decide what actions to take, there is a point in differentiating between bugs and vulnerabilities, and breathlessly proclaiming "we found a vulnerability but we don't have an exploitation vector or proof that there's a meaningful security consequence" is annoying and likely to get the proclaimer ignored in the future.

The context in which that statement was made, and in which I’m repeating it, I think, is just to say that any bug has the potential to be used maliciously. Ignore it, fine, but also don’t overreact to the intended message…

It is mostly meaningless and tautological claim: even every non-buggy feature of a software system has the potential to be used maliciously; a working system itself too.

Yes, maliciously used features should sometimes drive change (eg. in how to reduce or reduce impact of social engineering attacks), but as a claim it has no value.

Phrased this way, nothing changes: both true and irrelevant. In other words, any action taken in response to this message is an overreaction. It's just noise.

No, not all vulnerabilities are bugs. "Bug" implies a system working in a way its creators did not intend, but a system can be working exactly as intended yet have a vulnerability.

For example, if you allow weak passwords, then you have a trivial vulnerability to people guessing other people's passwords. But nothing about the login system is working differently from how anyone intended. It's just that the intentions themselves were naïve.