Just to address the “AI-generated” point directly:

This isn’t something you can realistically get out of an LLM by prompting it....

If you ask an AI to write about Next.js RCE, it will stay abstract, high-level, and defensive by default. It will avoid concrete execution paths, real integration details, or examples that could be interpreted as enabling exploitation — because that crosses into dual-use content.

This article deliberately goes further than that line: it includes real execution ordering, concrete framework behaviors, code-level examples, deployment patterns, and operational comparisons drawn from incident analysis. That’s exactly the kind of specificity automated filters tend to suppress or generalize away.

It’s still non-procedural on purpose — no payloads or step-by-step exploitation - but it’s not “AI vague” either. The detail is there so defenders can reason about where execution and observability actually break down.

Whether that level of detail is useful is subjective, but the reason it reads differently is because it’s grounded in real systems and real failure modes, not generated summaries.

...and the question what an Next.js audit has to do with "expert blockchain security audits", as advertised by BlockHacks (OP).