Hacker News

How much money do you think a nation state has to spend on exploiting an OSS library? More or less than the owner of the OSS library? There's your answer.

Furthermore, of course Glasswing participants are scanning their dependencies as well. Why would you think they aren't!?

OpenAI gives access to cyber models for open source maintainers

https://openai.com/index/patch-the-planet/

Wouldn't open source enable review from people with access to the scanners prior to release?

Seems like there is a fair chance that it will mostly be an actual spike, where's a bunch of existing vulnerabilities get cleaned up and then published software mostly has less vulnerabilities going forward.

If we take the noise about Mythos' capabilities as read, then releasing it freely into the world could result in chaos, as attackers find myriad new vulnerabilities and use them, and code owners frantically hunt for them and fix any that are exploited. (Noting, of course, how legendarily quick and agile large corporations aren't, compared to motivated individuals or small groups.). Eventually, given unfettered access to Mythos and sufficient time, things would settle down again once everything was patched, but who knows what would happen in the process?

So I suspect this has less to do with the underlying ethics or logic, and more to do with Anthropic not wanting to be held responsible for unleashing a potential period of chaos onto the world.

Of course, if someone has access to a tool that can find vulnerabilities in code, the process is identical whether the ultimate intent is to fix or exploit them (which may be Hegseth's underlying logic?). So to avoid this 'world chaos' scenario, Anthropic needs to somehow restrict Mythos access, avoiding bad players. And the only heuristics available at scale are either task-based assessment by AI (with downgrading of anything marginally risky to older models) or selection of trusted organisations by humans.

(By the by, to your point, it would also make sense to expand Glasswing to open source maintainers, at scale. I can't tell to what extent this has been part of that project?)

You're right on that, https://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/full-stack-spies/ goes over it in much more lucid detail.

Hegseth is to blindisded by macho-ism to value anything that requires patience and planning (see iran) If Fable is able to cheaply (ie less than $40k) find serious CVEs in common software, then it costs america much more to defend against it. especially as they are keeping the price of zero days artificially high.

On my hobby coding with C++ I also cross check with CoPilot, alongside the usual VS analysis tools.

Which was certainly an improvement, given that Github is in no hurry to add modules support to CodeQL.

In pretty much every single HN post on this topic, there are a number of commenters claiming it’s false. Continued quantifiable data like this seems very important at hopefully resolving the ongoing disagreement about the facts.

We (Project Glasswing users) follow a proof-of-concept approach. We create the exploit and verify that it behaves as the AI claims. Given our experience as security engineers (many of us with 10+ YoE) we don’t simply report every critical bug Mythos claims to have found. We verify each one carefully.

At least, that’s what most of the high-visibility users in Project Glasswing are doing.

There are bad apples everywhere, and this initiative is no exception.

If it makes you feel any better, many of us regularly meet to stay calibrated and hold each other accountable, so I’m confident in the quality of the work produced by this particular group of employees across some of the partner companies mentioned in the article.

That said, I know several people who blindly report everything Mythos finds, which is foolish, especially since the harness is a critical part of the project's quality metrics. Some of the harnesses I’ve tested are quite weak, which leads to poor results.

For example, yesterday morning I was pulled into an ad hoc meeting where a CVP was grilling me about several supposedly critical bugs that my team had reported against one of the core components of iCloud. I was genuinely surprised because we’re very strict about validation. We often even downgrade the severity of bugs when our harness can’t prove what Mythos found. After reading the reports, I realized they weren’t ours. They came from another team that had recently been given access to Mythos. They built their own harness and were using different vulnerability criteria. Fortunately, they had only started earlier this week, so I was able to stop that work.

That incident showed that not everyone involved in Project Glasswing follows the same standards. Most people do their best, but priorities differ, so it’s expected that you’ll find a few bad apples.

I wish AI labs would stop the theatrics and release their models without restrictions, but I also recognize that’s not the world we live in. For every person who wants to use these technologies for good, there are many others who would use them for harm.

In any case, while I agree that some experiments contain genuine noise, the CVE count is real.

The best case scenario for AI companies is, people receive those bug reports, look at the model that produced it and not even look at the details, just apply the fix mindlessly

This gives Anthropic a staggering amount of power. Oh it came from Mythos? We will just lose time trying to analyze it, better apply the fix ASAP

I think it's rather this:

3. People were already sitting on vulnerability reports from their own tools and threw them over the wall.

They were worried about getting scooped. They had to consider Mythos' alleged capabilities as a tool, and Project Glasswing potentially establishing a well-run disclosure and remediation process. Both could devalue preexisting results.

Bad guys don't report vulns, they use them.

I might be missing something here, but why do you assume this spike in CVEs is from bad guys? I would assume it's at least largely good guys finding and reporting vulns, not based on in-the-wild exploitation by bad guys.

Disclosure of a vulnerability doesnt mean a bad guy found it.

Mythos is from April, it was just limited to a small number of organizations.

Glass wing was announced April 7th.

Not really special, which was the point, its a general model. This is really good marketing as all other LLMs are able to do the same work.

It's the former.