yes i’ve hacked paxel. this is a public disclosure in real-time, with a tool anyone in the world can use to make their analysis top 1%, and @ YC i’ve indicated some basic cryptography that is missing and can be used to patch this

lemme tell you the full story

early june when I found the application form for Startup School 26’ (referred by Dhanush, shoutout: Audora S26!) part of the extreme delay in me applying was just that I really wanted to know what Paxel did — like really really badly [prioritizing curiosity over all else can sometimes become procrastinatory]

if it was being used to grade applications for startup school, it must be acting as a competitive ranker. and if so, why wouldn’t i try and hack it to give myself that edge?

nearly 12 days later i finished my application simultaneously with a companion email to YC sent called “Disclosed a vulnerability in Paxel as part of my YC SS26 application.”

No details, the body was empty. Granted, I wanted to be cool and send them panicking and looking for my application to make it stand out among the 30k+ others. but anyone who was at YC likely has enough agency to cross-reference my email against the applications database and find the detailed disclosure

this was sent on the 24th of Jun. I was invited to Startup School 6 days later, but I didn’t get a response back for that email, and neither from the applications team where I disclosed more details

Since all this, the only update to the paxel install script I checked has been adding support for VSCode Copilot, so the bug hasn’t been patched (unless they quietly built a honeypot in that time, but indications in the way the code is structured tells me that isn’t likely) — so i think it’s now appropriate to make this disclosure public. i’ll try to simplify my explanation of the hack even for the non-technical, along with the solution that shouldn’t have been missing from the outset: just 2 functions of basic cryptography

— — —

there are 2 ways you can learn this. One is to continue with reading the writeup below, and the other, preferable for people like me, is in baby-steps, and by-doing.

With the exact same ux as the original paxel, I’ve created a fork hosted at https://paxel.obaid.wtf that you can use in as a drop-in replacement.

It uses the same YC servers and runs the exact same pipeline as Paxel (code preserved bit-for-bit) but at the last step just before it uploads to YC, it intercepts the “scoring” and “notes” parameter, sending them to an LLM gateway hosted on my servers (no logs, secure, powered by cloudflare ai gateway) and returns them “buffed”: i.e: increasing the score in a realistic way, while identifying qualities in your code the original LLM analysis does not do.

then it uploads it, back to yc. and yc accepts it. and not only does it accept it, but along with hidden scoring parameters used by yc’s backend, even the visible report strength of the same project uploaded through “regular” and “boosted” paxel differs wildly.

📌 <cannot attach images so here i'm just gonna ask y'all to on the thread/blog post>