Expanding Project Glasswing

https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-project-glasswing

by surprisetalk • 2 months ago

180 249 2 months ago

anthropic.com

https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/02/anthropic-scales-claude-my...

philipwhiuk• 2 months ago

It would have been nice to have a list of the 150, but I guess it would make them a hacking target?

bushido2• 2 months ago

This feels more and more like a marketing/scarcity play for the largest global corps.

Will likely give them time to expand capacity as well. And make them harder to dislodge in these orgs.

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

Urgency x scarcity, unbeatable marketing move.

bushido2• 2 months ago

It is really good. Will also cut through the common procurement, legal and change management processes seen at these orgs.

aspenmartin10• 2 months ago

To me this makes little sense — I can’t imagine the orgs they have limited this rollout to don’t already have Claude subscriptions and integrations. And sure this may play nicely into branding a build a mystique around the model but ultimately they are missing out on a ton of revenue and risking being totally front-run now that model performance parameters are out and people have firsthand experience. Feels more like a fairly genuine attempt to be responsible. They could have easily rolled out an update and done some PR to absolve themselves of responsibility

mentalgear• 2 months ago

Here's my big fear: Even IF (and that's a BIG if) we get all critical vulnerabilities fixed in tech (before adversarial/state-actors turn up with open attack models) - we still have (in at least a year) models that will be so good in social engineering that they can still (given enough tokens) gain access to whatever system they want.

If society can't trust banks and other institutions to safely control their data, what follows ?

Do we we collectivelly switch off the internet?

colechristensen• 2 months ago

Social engineering as a problem goes away when anybody can get a model to do it for them for $5. It stops being possible, it's really the bank's problem when they can't have a minimum wage call center or a robot responsible for people's data.

p-e-w• 2 months ago

Yes. There will be a few high-profile incidents, and then institutions will be forced to stop performing administrative actions based on people’s word.

lern_too_spel• 2 months ago

The government should be in charge of ID Provider infrastructure and has local offices (postal) that can establish physical identity (and already do for people who need to travel abroad), but the religiously affiliated NWO conspiracy theorists have made this politically infeasible in the US, so we have unsavory private sector providers like World ID stepping in.

insanitybit3• 2 months ago

A lot of social engineering attacks die the second you have domain bound 2FA. Not everything, but a lot.

But the idea that we'll squash all of the critical vulns is simply nonsense, despite the weird Firefox blog posts that indicate otherwise.

MostlyStable2• 2 months ago

We don't need to squash all of them, we need to squash all of them that are practically findable by current and very near term frontier models.

UltraSane2• 2 months ago

If things really get that bad then everything will require FIDO keys or push authorization using a phone app and possibly a initial registration code sent to a physical address. This is how Epic MyChart works.

protocolture8• 2 months ago

Here's my big fear: Even IF (and that's a BIG if) we get all critical vulnerabilities fixed in tech (before adversarial/state-actors turn up with open attack models) - we still have (in at least a year) models that will be so good in social engineering that they can still (given enough tokens) gain access to whatever system they want.

I was working at the fruit company when they just hard stopped people from recovering their fruitcloud accounts via phone support due to social engineering.

Social Engineering risk just increases the burden on the consumer/internal support services. The risk is that not everyone has pulled up stumps to protect these services. After a few high profile fuck ups they will. The herd loses 2 beasts and the rest wander away from that water hole.

Its much like how after bitlocker we dont have user access to backup server disks anymore. The lesson was learned and we moved on. Lots of high profile fuckups but we dont get those anymore. CTO's were forced, basically at gunpoint, to adapt or die.

827a2• 2 months ago

GPT-5.5-Cyber has already at least hit if not surpassed Mythos capability in cyber tasks. The only reason they're holding back is because once its out everyone would realize that its capabilities were a step change in March, but are not anymore, yet it costs significantly more and is much slower.

john_strinlai• 2 months ago

how did you go about assessing this?

jansan• 2 months ago

So you believe one marketing department more than the other?

NitpickLawyer• 2 months ago

The brits have a step-based benchmark that they use for this - https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/our-evaluation-of-openais-gpt-5...

They seem pretty close, in both average and "best run" scores. And, in a highly verifiable domain, "best run" or pass@n is what you're looking for.

chis• 2 months ago

But GPT-5.5-Cyber is also not released publicly?

cmxch6• 2 months ago

That’s fine as long as I can identify and reject any Mythos derived patch as being irreproducible.

IanCal2• 2 months ago

Why would it not be reproducible?

cmxch6• 2 months ago

Its analysis from prompt/harness to end products.

astrange• 2 months ago

How can a patch be "reproducible"? The testcases are reproducible.

cmxch6• 2 months ago

How Mythos’s mysterymeat got there from front to back.

aspectop• 2 months ago

i think anthropic is being performative here, creating a hype for mythos and not releasing. i guess this is all a marketing thing to sell a security specialized AI to enterprise and startups at a way larger cost coz security market is deep in money.

skybrian3• 2 months ago

This is just cover for being sore that you don’t have access yet <- see what I did there?

People and organizations can have mixed motivations. It’s often not “just” one thing.

jofzar• 2 months ago

The organizations in this new group are based in more than 15 countries

I mean most nasdaq tech companies would be in 13+ countries, why are they writing this like it's a big number, is hilariously small?

newtonsmethod• 2 months ago

I assume they're using a more candid definition where they're not counting all the countries a company may be based, but rather the primary country they're based in.

I don't think they're trying to flex this as a large number. They don't want to give an exact number, as that may change etc / is fuzzy, but also want to give you an idea of the scale.

They say "In the future, we intend to expand our geographical reach much further". I imagine this commentary is somewhat related to the concerns that AI will create an even worse "global underclass". AI developments are first accessible to Americans, then allies, and then later the whole world.

SpicyLemonZest2• 2 months ago

They're writing it in contrast to the previous scope, which doesn't seem to have been available to any organizations based outside the US. (There was news a few weeks ago about how Japanese banks were going to gain access, but based on the timing I think this announcement is that access.)

aplthrowaway673• 2 months ago

How "altruistic" of them. If only Anthropic extended this level of care to the environment or the economy.

aspenmartin10• 2 months ago

Why do you think the impact to the economy is bad? Also, if youre talking about the environment from the lens of data centers, I agree they CAN be incredibly problematic and that should be regulated and pushed back against when they engage in problematic behaviors (stressing water supply in a drought area e.g.). But not blindly -- data centers can be a clear win-win in a lot of ways, especially if done right. "data centers = bad" is way way way too simplistic a picture

aplthrowaway673• 2 months ago

These are extremely common and well-discussed opinions, you can disagree with them but I would venture that asking "WHY do you think AI will negatively impact the economy?" is so ignorant it's not even a good-faith argument.

tantalor• 2 months ago

They should share it with Meta.

https://www.0xsid.com/blog/meta-account-takeover-fiasco

fontain• 2 months ago

“Mythos Preview continues a long-term trend that we’ve been warning about for some time: within 6 to 12 months […]”

The only trend Mythos continues is Anthropic’s trend of warning that disaster is always 6 to 12 months away.

yanis_t• 2 months ago

Is there any evidence Mythos is qualitatively better than the Opus 4.x?

I'm afraid that the usual mantra that "we just need more scale" that worked well for attracting investments, is not working anymore - bigger models provide marginal improvements while naturally get much more expensive to run.

Is this why both Anthropic and OpenAI are rushing for IPOs this year?

alasano• 2 months ago

From what I've read so far it's less about Mythos being much better at tasks in isolation.

Security wise, it's about being able to find and chain multiple vulnerabilities to actually create viable exploits.

So I would imagine that if you were using it for regular software development you may not feel that it's that different unless used in a particular way?

pixl972• 2 months ago

There seems to be some number of people here on HN that make their money in old style cyber security that seem to be under the delusion that LLMs are just going to go away and it's going to go back to business as usual for their cash cow.

I work with a number of people in security that have come around, and while they still think LLMs are rather garbage at architecture, they see how well current models we can access now are at finding security issues. They can chain together wildly different concepts and turn them into working exploits.

rfgplk2• 2 months ago

It probably isn't, at least in terms of security or memory safety. The current models can already sniff out all memory vulnerabilities with relative ease, you can't really beat that.

JacobAsmuth2• 2 months ago

Have you read firefoxes findings? They found it to be qualitatively improved over Opus, and have published several of the resulting CVEs as well as more detailed numbers.

aspenmartin10• 2 months ago

Im afraid that the usual mantra that "we just need more scale" that worked well for attracting investments, is not working anymore - bigger models provide marginal improvements while naturally get much more expensive to run.

It's super interesting to hear this refrain on HN, it is alarmingly common. Anthropic released benchmark numbers on Mythos, as they have for all of their models. Once models become public, people evaluate them in a myriad of ways. We have had reliable scaling laws for years and they still hold. Epoch capability index continues to grow exactly as expected. Where does this idea come from?

As for cost, the cost per token at a given level of performance drops up to 40x per year.

cmxch6• 2 months ago

Mythos numbers are effectively irreproducible aside from cherry-picked approvals.

wrsh07• 2 months ago

It is quantitatively better at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. Pretty wild that everyone here is just in denial about that, when folks who have used it say it's as good as the hype

Cf wrote a genuinely good piece and had found a bunch of bugs: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cyber-frontier-models/

Wolfssl is security focused and it found a novel exploit https://www.wolfssl.com/how-claude-mythos-preview-helped-har...

You can pretend that it's all smoke and mirrors, but that just doesn't match up with reality: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/2026/05/defenders-guid...

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

Step 1: claim you created a tool so dangerous you can't release it

Step2: offer to test it, but only for the biggest companies in the world

Step 3: onboard those big players on your tooling and product

Step 4: profit

This is genius.

estearum• 2 months ago

And all you have to do is demonstrate unique value during the pilot phase!

Err... wait... that was already the hard part... hmm

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

Genius marketing move doesn't mean there is no value.

It means than even if the value you offer is similar as your competitors, you are the one conquering the market.

That's the only way to not becoming a commodity.

geodel2• 2 months ago

With trillion dollars at stake they can hire best of best in sales and marketing. And unlike some hardcore hackers who may have ethics that does not always move in direction of more money. Sales and marketing people are highly motivated for opportunities to make more money.

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

Our game is to craft shit, their game is to sell shit. You gotta respect the different tastes in the nature!

cyanydeez4• 2 months ago

Don't you understand, if they really did do the <ai magic> they don't need to hire anyone, IT SELLS ITSELF

aspenmartin10• 2 months ago

These companies are surely already onboarded…? They claim like 10k verified and high severity CVEs. Would you have preferred they just rolled it out like another opus update? You wouldn’t be insinuating in that situation that they were careless and reckless? They risk missing a boatload of revenue if openAI front runs them for a public launch. In what world is this some sort of scam??

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

Where did I use the word scam?

Marketing move doesn't mean scam. It describe the ability to sell people over a narrative and surpassing your competitor in market share. And that's exactly what is happening.

My post is a "tribute" to the efficiency of Anthropic's communication. I never complained about anything, nor calling it a scam, nor saying they should have released mythos to the public instead of rolling it out to a selected cohort.

You tried to expand my words to make me say something I didn't, because my post wasn't giving you a clear conclusion of my opinion regarding their private release.

cyanydeez4• 2 months ago

can't release it

can't release it the plebs

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

Unsure about that, opus was already insanely good and we got it for a fractional cost via subscriptions.

They want the plebs, they want the mass.

skybrian3• 2 months ago

It’s true that providing security services to so many organizations will likely put them in a position to earn lots of money. It makes them an essential service, sort of like what happened with Cloudflare and denial-of-service attacks. (There are competitors, but they’re the first company people think of.)

But I think that downplays the importance of having a good product. If the product didn’t work, this would be a good way to lose trust with a lot of organizations in a hurry.

sandeepkd• 2 months ago

This is a circular economy that makes everyone look good. Almost all of these enterprise companies are sitting on top of so much of tech debt that in any realistic scenario they cant really patch vulnerabilities if they are even in double digits. A lot of these companies would not even let their valuable enough code to be ingested by LLM's.

At this phase no company would risk their brand by calling the product as ineffective. The big players are in it together and small ones have no option but to play along.

Nevertheless collecting the historical wisdom and running it at machine scale does have a lot of benefits for sure. The only question is the signal to noise ratio, machine is doing what humans did, just at a multiplier speed and with a lot more context than what a normal human can hold.

wslh• 2 months ago

And put Chris Olah, Anthropic co-founder, sitting next to Pope Leo XIV presenting his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, at the Vatican.

baggachipz• 2 months ago

Seems like they're not even close to step 4.

andrewjneumann• 2 months ago

They keep writing like they stand to profit from this or something. Too many “coulds” in there for me too, this could be an amazing advancement and it could be nothing… normally we look at data and last headline I saw was 25 “high” vulnerabilities at the cost of $1 million in tokens.

No comparison to human teams, and I’m sure that $1 million in tokens was used by humans, in a team. So like most AI, they’ve developed a tool that capable people can use to be better, but unlike most tools, they’re claiming this to be outright magic. The magic is the hype train.

ianm2186• 2 months ago

In case the topic of memory safety is interesting to anyone I've been experimenting with using AI agents to port common web infra projects to safe/ performant Rust. Somewhat inspired by the Bun port - was thinking that at some point memory safety might be such a big deal that people just need drop in replacements.

- Valkey/ Redis port here https://github.com/ianm199/valdr (passes ~99% of single node test suite, real prod features like replication/ clustering/ HA early or not implemented) - Further along port of Lua 5.1-5.5 https://github.com/ianm199/lua-rs-port/tree/main - I have a less developed nginx version that would be the north star - These projects are very alpha at the moment

If anyone is interested in getting involved in this or has done similar experiments I'd love to collaborate! There is so much variation in how you can run these large scale agent fleets I don't think anyone has a perfect system yet.

rxhampton2• 2 months ago

If someone is porting such disparate projects as Valkey and Lua it is just for show and will be pre-alpha forever.

No one wants Bun in Rust, no one wants the rsync vibe code additions. This is just the only pro-AI comment, so the AI people voted it to the top.

ianm2186• 2 months ago

Hmm my reasoning was that in order to have Nginx work in Rust you want to expose scripting so having a decent Lua in Rust is key to not call out to C for that. And then Valkey/ Redis is a lot simpler than nginx so it was a good way to learn how some of this works.

And I'd disagree on no one wants - Lua is quite helpful since it is easily used in WASM. There has been some interest from people in the Bevy community - a game engine in Rust - since you can't have Lua scripting in browser games easily with the C version.

But anyway if people want it or not memory safety might become much more important so I think it is a good area to explore. Some people think large C codebases are inherently unsecurable https://alexgaynor.net/2020/may/27/science-on-memory-unsafet...

baq3• 2 months ago

I don’t care if bun is written in zig, rust, go, f# or sql. If it works, it works.

I also don’t care if it’s written by humans or LLMs or robot overlords from Alpha Centauri. Again, if it works, it works.

The operative word here is ‘works’. Code is now cheap, QA still isn’t. Since people don’t really like doing the same thing twice, specs for working code have never been written. Nowadays there is no reason to not create a spec detailed enough for robots to make no mistakes (pun intended) when filling in the gaps when converting from spec space to code space. As long as this remains true, I don’t care who or what does the boring parts.

WatchDog• 2 months ago

disparate projects as Valkey and Lua

Lua is often heavily used in Redis/Valkey, if you are interested in porting Valkey, it makes sense to also port Lua, they aren't "disparate".

julianlam• 2 months ago

Respectfully, as an OSS maintainer (not to the scale of nginx or valkey, of course)... if a third-party used an AI agent to rewrite my software in a different language, that gives me absolutely no reason to support that new project.

It is in all respects foreign code in a language I may or may not be familiar with, and worse yet, if I were to take over, I'd be responsible for maintaining the whole black box forever more?

Thank you but no thanks.

dyauspitr3• 2 months ago

Why would you have to take it over? Wouldn’t it just be a fork/different project entirely.

baq3• 2 months ago

I don’t think anyone expects you to TBH. If you show interest, great. If not, the robot will translate your work into a different form of expression anyway. If you’re releasing open source software under BSD-like licenses, it’s still better than some company taking your work and selling it with zero value contributed back.

ianm2186• 2 months ago

Yes I hope this can be separated from people who are inundating OSS maintainers with slop PRs - these are fully separate projects with zero expectation of involvement from maintainers. Valkey itself is forked off the original Redis.

There might be a world where people soon just find unsafe C code exposed to the web (i.e. nginx) an untenable situation and I hope it can be a helpful resource.

Anyway, I see open source code as positive sum. Maybe in the end only a small community who cares about cross compilation finds this helpful and thats a win!

mswphd• 2 months ago

seems like it could be a decent opportunity for a bad actor to slip in something nefarious as well. We all know that nobody is reviewing a >>500k loc diff. For something like the Bun rewrite, where plausibly the person driving the agent(s) didn't want to sneak in something nefarious things might be ok. That seems significantly less true when you cannot trust the person driving the agent(s)/producing the >>500k loc diff.

notnullorvoid• 2 months ago

I love Rust, but porting others software to Rust (or any language) is a mixed bag. I'm a strong believer that good software requires deep domain knowledge to build and maintain. Porting code you don't understand by hand already risks still not understanding it afterwards, doing it in an automated fashion all but guarantees it.

All that to say I think these automated ports are interesting experiments. However if you want to build something people can trust, the people need to be able to trust that you fully understand what is built, and why it's built the way it is.

jspdown2• 2 months ago

I find this kind of rewrite both disrespectful and completely useless. Useless because the difficulty isn't getting to a working state but maintaining it. You now have to build a community around it to make any of this worthwhile. What would this software be worth if security issues weren't patched and bugs weren't fixed? You can't do this alone. And I find it disrespectful because people have spent decades building this, and you're taking all that collectively built knowledge to create something that will compete with the project itself.

I hope people will restrain themself from doing this at least in the name of good ethic. I fear this is going to hurt OSS a lot.

I hope people will hold back from this, if only out of respect for the work that came before. I fear it could do real damage to OSS. It would discourage the maintainers whose effort makes any of it possible.

ianm2186• 2 months ago

Hmm I view open source as purely positive sum. Valkey was forked from Redis in the first place.

But this is more about memory safety - you can have immense respect for the giants who built these tools but also be worried that memory safety might become an even bigger deal. If someone found a memory zero day in nginx or openSSL for example that is a very big deal!

I think this is one strategy we should look into, hopefully people in the C community look into other options like project Glasswing/ next generation fuzzers etc. When the world of security is changing so fast it is good to get a lot of shots on net.

overfeed3• 2 months ago

Are you preserving the original software licenses, or AI-laundering the code in the manner[1] of https://malus.sh

1. AI-rewrites are not clean room implementations.

ianm2186• 2 months ago

Yes original licenses are preserved

15155• 2 months ago

Do you have any specific case citations to substantiate this idea?

safercplusplus• 2 months ago

If the source language is C++, another option might be to use AI agents to port to a memory-safe subset of C++ [1]. For the most part, this involves surgical changes and glorified find-and-replace operations. And I'm guessing way fewer tokens :)

If the source language is legacy C, then another option might be (deterministic) transpilation to a memory-safe subset of C++ [2]. The resulting code wouldn't necessarily be performance-optimal, but it can be used for the majority of code that isn't really performance-sensitive.

[1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/scpp_code_migration [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...

iamniels• 2 months ago

Whats currently an open source project which comes closest to Mythos capabilities?

adrian_b• 2 months ago

No single open weights model comes close to either Mythos or GPT 5.5.

Nonetheless, running many of the open weights models over a codebase, with an appropriate harness, can provide about the same vulnerability coverage (i.e. each of the open weights models would find a subset of what Mythos or GPT 5.5 could find, but the subsets are not the same).

Despite needing more runs and more time, this may be significantly cheaper, especially if the models are self hosted.

Based on what Anthropic said about Mythos, they also use a quite elaborate harness for finding bugs and vulnerabilities, i.e. not a simple prompt like "find the bugs".

They run repeatedly Mythos on each file of the codebase, many times. They start with more generic prompts, used to determine whether a more thorough analysis of that file is worthwhile. Then they use more specific prompts, to detect various classes of bugs. After it becomes probable that a certain bug exists, they do a final run where the prompt requests a confirmation of the already known bug, perhaps together with a proposed patch or a PoC exploit.

Therefore the efficiency of finding vulnerabilities depends a lot on the harness, not only on the LLM. Also, searching vulnerabilities in a big codebase when paying per token is very expensive, because it requires many runs of the LLM.

mekpro2• 2 months ago

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly.

They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.

simonw2• 2 months ago

They started Glasswing before they struck that $1.25B/month deal with xAI/SpaceX for their (notoriously dirty) Memphis data centers.

So they have a whole lot more compute now than they did last month.

nickthegreek• 2 months ago

But that compute might not be available to then long term. Hard to make big moves with a contract like that.

mekpro2• 2 months ago

Yes, 300 MW from SpaceX helps a lot, but I think that’s mainly to support Opus demand, which has grown faster than expected. If Mythos is roughly 5× more expensive to serve than Opus, as the pricing suggests, then 300 MW is nowhere near enough to enable large-scale deployment of Mythos.

As an ordinary developer who relies on a $20–$200/month subscription, I feel disappointed by the release of a paper describing a model that I can’t actually use.

cobolcomesback• 2 months ago

So why is OpenAI also releasing 5.5-Cyber in a private manner? Are they also out of compute?

LiamPowell3• 2 months ago

OpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks.

jb_briant14• 2 months ago

It is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative.

Forgeties792• 2 months ago

All of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here.

lossolo• 2 months ago

Probably. This is an 8-12 trillion-parameter model, which is why it costs so much, that is also a major reason, besides RL and synthetic data, why it suddenly gained these new capabilities. They claim it was not fine-tuned or trained specifically for cybersecurity, but is instead a general purpose model.

notahacker• 2 months ago

The security concerns argument would have worked better if a forum full of people hadn't promptly obtained access by the extremely sophisticated tactic of guessing its URL...

NiloCK• 2 months ago

I find this line of reasoning highly dubious.

Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal.

But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is.

If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1. If still overwhelmed, there are larger prices as well.

malfist• 2 months ago

And then the bubble would collapse. Corps are already putting limits on token usage across the board because of costs. Increasing costs would significantly contract the hype bubble.

tiahura• 2 months ago

Sort of, but valuation models depend on X being in a certain range. If it > this range, revenue and therefore valuation are impacted.

deaton• 2 months ago

The question is, will anyone pay enough for Mythos to offset the opportunity cost of offering that much Opus? You don't want to end up in a spot where you don't have enough compute and your service's reliability degrades to an unusable state like xAI.

mattnewton• 2 months ago

No insider info, but just wanted to mention that pricing signals things too. If Mythos is only servable at $X*Y dollars and isn’t Y times better than $X of compute at another provider, it’s quite possible that affects the IPO price negatively versus the halo of having the worlds most expensive model that is “too powerful to release” unpriced and unbenchmarked.

I think that most people at Anthropic are true believers from my interactions with them so I don’t believe this theory anecdotally. The simplest explanation is that it really is taking a while to gain confidence they won’t be used for a spree of bad cyber attacks. Knowing how long it takes institutions to fix security issues when filed by humans I would be more suprised if this wasn’t the case.

But I would forgive anyone who did think it was deliberately sandbagged; given the staggering sums at play, true believers might believe the ends justify the means to a little “marketing” like this.

OtherShrezzing• 2 months ago

During periods of market exuberance, it’s in the vendors interest not to reveal where exactly x+1 is. At the moment, everyone just guesstimates the company’s TAM. Bringing certainty to that guesstimate cuts Anthropic off from the most exuberant market participants, bringing their post-IPO price down unnecessarily.

JumpCrisscross2• 2 months ago

Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1

This may not be as valuable in the long term as getting committed customers hooked at a sustainable price.

cute_boi• 2 months ago

Also, they just want to jack up the price by creating sensation.

pshirshov• 2 months ago

I bet Huawei and co would be happy to sell them some cheapo chips for inference!

baq3• 2 months ago

I had to patch my Linux boxes daily at some point in the past couple months. I don’t want Mythos to be publicly released for as long as it is economically feasible for Anthropic. I hope they have a gentleman’s agreement with OpenAI and DeepMind about this, too.

Chinese labs will force their hands, until then let’s hope maximum number of projects get patched at a reasonable pace.

cmxch6• 2 months ago

I hope that such agreement gets broken hard and given the MSRC cold shoulder. If that means abliterated Qwen et al embarrasses Mythos to deliver a wider rollout, I’ll take that.

Trusting Anthropic to deliver is like asking Microsoft to pay out for bugs.

atleastoptimal5• 2 months ago

Why do you think that? All these rumors about compute constraint just seem like speculation and not based on any data or information. All they would need to do is increase their prices to free up compute capacity.

y0eswddl• 2 months ago

it's also a marketing ploy.

mrbluecoat• 2 months ago

While I tend to be cynical with big tech, if this statement is indeed true we owe them some thanks for staving off a zero day tsunami.

50 initial partners ... found more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity security flaws.

mofeien• 2 months ago

Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic said the following at an Oxford lecture last week ([0], at around 10 and 12 mins):

    "It's a technology that we do not fully understand because it's more grown than made. And it is a technology that you can concoct plausible scenarios where it could kill every single person on the planet. So to think building this technology is without risk would be an act of hubris or insanity.

[...]

    The technology is in fact so powerful that I should clearly state that if it was possible to elegantly slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time as a species to deal with it, that would likely be a good thing. ... But in the absence of a coordinated global slowdown, we are left with the current situation, which is a powerful technology being developed at breakneck speed by a variety of actors and a variety of countries locked in a competition with one another where commercial and geopolitical rivalries are often drowning out the larger existential-to-the-species aspects of the technology being built. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's the one we find ourselves in."

They know they are in a race that no one will win.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIcP5WlShw

delusional• 2 months ago

"Oh what peril we are in where I must get rich by killing all of you" Is a statement that should make you disregard anyone saying it at any time. Either they are liars, or they are so morally bankrupt that they are willing to sacrifice the species for short term satisfaction. Either option makes them more fit for a mental hospital than a stage.

WarmWash2• 2 months ago

Thank you Mr. Altman for firing the starting gun when no one else wanted to race.

(The ambiguity of sarcasm is intentional here.)

tomjakubowski• 2 months ago

It's worth noting that Clark's career started in PR and journalism.

clbrmbr• 2 months ago

Was a good watch, tho would have liked to be there in person. Props to Brenden & his Cosmos team for really setting the bar.

airstrike2• 2 months ago

It's worth remembering that people do not always say what they believe. Instead, they often say that which benefits them the most.

protocolture8• 2 months ago

you can concoct plausible scenarios where it could kill every single person on the planet.

Idiots can scary black box their way to that concern. Plausible? Not so much.

Almondioco2• 2 months ago

Or they actually take the 'technology can kill' serious.

mrbonner• 2 months ago

Maybe it is just me: I feel Anthropic most recent product announcements resemble more and more like what IBM tactic was at its high. For instance, the Watson AI hype after it defeated Kasparov. The difference is IBM actually wanted and let businesses buy and use Watson as opposed to time released like what Anthropic does to even boost the hype higher.

3sk_ask82• 2 months ago

Big Blue defeated Kasparov. The Watson hype was about winning Jeopardy, which is still kind of the only use case for current AI.

cyanydeez4• 2 months ago

Expanding Project Glasswing (IPO)

3sk_ask82• 2 months ago

Anthropic has the marketing of a weight loss product.

- They still claim 10000 issues, but they found only one in curl.

- They did not find rsync issues but Claude rather introduced rsync issues.

- Facebook is a member of this cult program but Mythos did not find the account takeover flaw.

- Mythos did not find the issues in Anthropic's own Bun rewrite.

They will not release Mythos because it would be exposed as a fraud before the IPO.

rfgplk2• 2 months ago

It's just pure marketing, and most people are falling for it. The primary issue stems from their definition of "vulnerability". Most C code will be _swimming_ in vulnerabilities depending on how you analyze it (ie function that accepts a pointer but doesn't validate -> potential vulnerability right there). The only thing that matters is if it's de facto exploitable or not.

poemxo• 2 months ago

To be fair the curl author is excellent at what he does.

catigula• 2 months ago

I still find it funny that GPT-5.5 is just as good as Mythos and yet Anthropic likes to make things worse than they actually are.

aspenmartin10• 2 months ago

What's your basis for this?

testfrequency2• 2 months ago

Mythos gives BIG Tesla FSD energy, I’m over it

atleastoptimal5• 2 months ago

What does that even mean?

conradludgate• 2 months ago

Continously saying "FSD will be ready next year" for the last N years

UltraSane2• 2 months ago

All hype no substance.

cassianoleal2• 2 months ago

In the meantime, not everyone with actual access to the model are all that impressed.

https://cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog/116679693992983945

dymk2• 2 months ago

“Cybersecurity weather person and award winning shitposter.” why are they someone we should pay attention to the opinion of?

jchw2• 2 months ago

That's someone who is confident enough to have an evidently successful enough career to be able to access Mythos in its currently-limited rollout and yet not take themselves terribly seriously online.

Realistically their opinion deserves to hold more weight than the median HN comment.

ofjcihen• 2 months ago

The most intelligent person involved in the highest level projects at my current company introduces themselves as an out of work circus clown.

There is an incredible amount of competency signaled by someone who was given access to this model but doesn’t treat their online presence like a professional resume.

cassianoleal2• 2 months ago

There you go, judge it yourself.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-beaumont-security/

dyauspitr3• 2 months ago

Anyone can post anything on the internet.

airstrike2• 2 months ago

I'll share the first-hand account I recently got from someone else.

We've used it at work
it is... not as hype as everyone is concerned about
I'd argue the framework around it for security scanning is the arguably more useful side of the tool, definitely doesnt take a huge model to get all the issues it flagged on our systems
For us, it absolutely flooded us with noise
I mean hundreds if not thousands of false positives or minor issues or not applicable
For every one reasonable issue
The biggest issue it created was the execs treated every issue it produced like it was a drop everything and fix the issue type deal
I'm talking company wide drop all things "we need to patch nginx because this module that no one uses and is disabled by default has this RCE vulnerability™
Or "all ec2 AMIs need to be upgraded because it flagged a a version specific docker vulnerability", it flagged every single machine with docker regardless of if the actual vulnerability was relevant
Vulnerability was with a very specific Auth plugin configuration you could enable with docker and specifically the Mosley docker compatible tool, but it is clear it only knew there was a vulnerability in docker, not if it was applicable or not
Meanwhile dirtyfrag and friends not a single peep from btw despite it allowing for container escape
Idk, I was underwhelmed with the quality of the reporting it gave really. If the company allowed me to get information about all the infrastructure in our entire organisation to run Claude over it repeatedly looking for recent CVEs I'm sure I could produce the same results...

jr-throw• 2 months ago

I'm pretty impressed with regular Claude Code with Opus 4.7/4.8 in finding vulnerabilities in our code. Maybe 70% are false positives though. It's a lot of work to manually push back on the findings. Still worth it.

steve_adams_86• 2 months ago

It's similar with performance optimizations.

One example was Claude thinking we could optimize converting vector tiles to raster by operating in float32 rather than float64. It turned out the library we have to use casts to float64 anyway, so the work of casting to 32 then to 64 rather than staying at 64 actually slowed the path down by 12%.

Yet it also finds the odd thing that isn't very intuitive but leads to marked improvements I never would have uncovered because... Well, as a human with only 24 hours in a day, there's no way I'll turn over every leaf and find these items on my own.

I'm totally fine with the false positives because they're so easy the verify.

bgilroy26• 2 months ago

It seems like there is a genuine communication breakdown between management and engineering. Engineers know that there are vulnerabilities all over the place and that there have been for ages and that where the rubber hits the road every vulnerability does not represent a successful exploit by some nefarious actor.

Management can often treat cybersecurity like a black box that represents millions upon millions in liability. If Mythos represents an opportunity to bring management's understanding of the amount of "security vulnerability debt" everyone carries into the real world, it might be a good thing

thewebguyd• 2 months ago

It won't bring understanding though is the problem. You get situations like the parent, where the execs don't have the knowledge, time, or care to learn beyond "vulnerability bad, must patch now"

Execs/Management types getting extra visibility into the technical side, in my experience, has only ever resulted in additional but meaningless work, like just checking boxes on a compliance/audit checklist without actually considering the impacts of those changes, or whether a company is actually vulnerable to the disclosed CVE.

It's along the same lines of the BS I deal with day to day from upper management arguing back with "But ChatGPT said..." meanwhile pasting some hallucinated crap that doesn't even apply to our environment.

LLMs are basically a dunning-kruger machine for management. Engineering is best left alone and trusted to do what they are being paid to do.

torginus2• 2 months ago

I had a geniunely surreal conversation with the security team the past week, it went like:

'Hi, we are reaching out to you because our tool flagged a large data transfer between such and such services'

'Wait, the source endpoint is an internal service, the target endpoint is an internal S3 bucket (I was doing a routine DB backup) Neither are reachable from the internet. How is it a security issue?'

'Our tool has flagged it'

JumpCrisscross2• 2 months ago

Yeah, I’m getting the sense that Mythos is for cybersecurity what blockchain was for back-end finance. A bit useful. But mostly good for bringing attention to upgrading neglected systems.

deet• 2 months ago

To be fair though, models might be changing the calculus for what constitutes a vulnerability that is too small / too obscure to care about.

If AI is reducing the cost of using the long tail of small vulnerabilities or is making possible chaining them together into something more profound, then those small, less-concerning issues might requiring addressing in a way that was previously not required.

rossjudson• 2 months ago

I recommend "How to measure anything in cybersecurity risk". Really interesting read about putting actual value on security.

mohamedkoubaa• 2 months ago

In other words it is equivalent to spending a million dollars on an audit by a software security consulting company

lgpartman• 2 months ago

Or to RedHat for rewriting Python core 500 times.

The "humans do it too" argument gets tiresome. Even if the consulting company fails, the money goes back to employees and back into the real economy. Now it goes to Don Amodei.

The consulting company could be local, which provides a higher degree of confidence, though not proof, that no data is exfiltrated to the US.

And so on.

Almondioco2• 2 months ago

I think Opus 4.6 and Mythos overall/marketing wise are key points because it told the world that LLMs are now a critical / usefull tool for security audits.

Its aligns with the significant jump in helpfulness in CTF.

But i think its good to hear that its not that crazy good. Everything slowing it down is good.

jsisto• 2 months ago

This reminds me of when I added Snyk to our CI/CD and brought development to a standstill

zwigglers• 2 months ago

Same pattern. Scanners flag everything. The problem is there's no layer between findings and everyone's inbox. Prioritization is harder than detection.

AlexCoventry• 2 months ago

I thought one of the advantages of Glasswing was that it could produce a PoC for you. Was it producing working PoC's?

0123456789ABCDE3• 2 months ago

why are folks looking at the output of the first pass?

my understanding, and experience, is that you 1. run a bunch of sessions with small permutations to create variety, 2. run more sessions dedupe reports into a smaller collections of potential vulns, 3. run a handful of agents at max effort to write PoCs + write-ups, 4. rank findings, 5. finally look at what, if anything that, was found. maybe ask questions, try and understand if the PoC is running against a realistic setup.

until you can confirm a vuln report is valid, you must assume it is invalid.

SpicyLemonZest2• 2 months ago

What Project Glasswing claimed at launch is that Mythos can "surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities". What you're describing sounds more like making skilled humans more effective at penetration testing. That's cool, but it's not clear how much it matters, because most security teams were not previously bottlenecked on penetration testing capacity.

sbayg• 2 months ago

In other words it creates work. In other words Jevons paradox.

I can’t wait for the first court case where an LLM surfaces a vuln, lazy devs ignore it, and someone later sues the company into oblivion for liability.

fn-mote• 2 months ago

When was the last time you remember a company being sued into oblivion for a security breach?

The cost in the US is more like “one year of credit monitoring”.

Escapade5160• 2 months ago

This is the same gripe I have over any LLM vulnerability tooling. 95% of what gets flagged is something that if taken by itself could be a vulnerability. However, the path to execute that specific vuln, in that specific function, is impossible in that particular code base and it just makes noise.

jen20• 2 months ago

The biggest issue it created was the execs treated every issue it produced like it was a drop everything and fix the issue type deal

While this is definitely not the ideal end of the spectrum either, execs treating security issues as something serious instead of annoyances that should only be addressed if revenue can be tied to doing so is a welcome improvement.

protocolture8• 2 months ago

Seems like there might be a market for a product that just prefixes "The AI Said" on emails to executives about security vulns.

aliljet• 2 months ago

Is this just one giant marketing plot?

hasteg• 2 months ago

There's a lot of speculation that it is indeed a marketing plot and the model is just a step improvement over current capabilities... and the real reason they aren't releasing the model is they are compute constrained and cannot serve the model. To my knowledge there's no proof of this however, but given the fact that literally 60 days ago they made Mythos out to be the end of the world and last Friday they announced that they will release the model in a few weeks, I feel like it was indeed something along those lines (marketing ploy).

basch• 2 months ago

Or just control of supply and demand. If they can charge twice as much serving half as many customers, that leaves a lot of potential future customers leftover.

kspacewalk2• 2 months ago

Their IPO is coming up soon. It would be interesting if Mythos remained mythical right up until then, wouldn't it?

datakan• 2 months ago

The week before they released Mythos to governments they had all their source code stolen. It's all about improving their image and creating propoganda.

pixelesque• 2 months ago

It wasn't "all their source code", it was the source code to Claude Code: not really any of their internal secret sauce, at least directly.

protocolture8• 2 months ago

yes

waffleiron• 2 months ago

Not so sure I would want a company that does not see any issues with mass surveillance of my country [1] to have access to critical infrastructure or its source code where I live.

[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war :

But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values.

3asdkab• 2 months ago

So, they expand the program to US "ally" governments and corporations.

These entities will now give all their IP to an American company that only promises not to spy on Americans.

Subsequently, the NSA can audit the leaked sources manually and find real exploits.

CephalopodMD• 2 months ago

This is either a chuffed up PR move or an extremely generous alpha fold "publish all the proteins" moment

saidnooneever• 2 months ago

PR. their models dont do anything more than others. neither do their tools. they have very agrressive and misleading marketing.

work in cyber for 15+ years, worked at largest CS vendor globally and fortune5 companies. (top of the list).

only ppl using AI are shops with clueless ppl getting flooded in nonsense.

You will see the same sentiment in a different flavor (different products) in OSS security mailing lists now.

do not fall for it. for every one of these things. Test it, verify it, for yourself. dont take anyone's word. 100B+ valuation makes external voices generally worthless (easy to buy)

Im not saying its all worthless or will never amount to anything. But test yourself. please. a lot of money is getting chucked around.

Look at it this way.

They have a stake in having companies create not very good software. They have a stake in supplying engineers to fix that. They have a stake in tools to fix problems that it creates.

you can guess the next service offering...

not_a9• 2 months ago

only ppl using AI are shops with clueless ppl getting flooded in nonsense.

Are Hex-Rays and Vector35 clueless?

merrvk• 2 months ago

Got to say, Anthropic have hell of a marketing team.

maipen• 2 months ago

I don't get how this is event front page of HN.

dyauspitr3• 2 months ago

Grow up, what else would be? This is about as relevant as it gets to this forum.

yalogin• 2 months ago

We are in the early stages of monetizing the AI stack/service and Anthropic is set to take it in. Not sure if it’s cost effective for them or not but they are clear winner here. They have created this awareness among executives about the value and need for AI and that is what matters, it will be budgeted accordingly. They are positioning it as a must have not just for productivity but also beyond that as a Swiss army tool , pretty smart

strictnein• 2 months ago

Work in a top tier security org at a Fortune 50. We still can't get access to this stuff, even though we've reached out repeatedly.

I mention this because if you're frustrated that you can't access it, you're not alone. Even with our company's heft and a security org that is very well known in the industry we're getting nowhere.

Expanding Project Glasswing

Related Stories