this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
176 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

84143 readers
2434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
176
Anthropic Mythos shaping up as nothingburger (www.theregister.com)
submitted 3 days ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/28915273

[...]

That marketing may have outstripped reality. Early reports from Mythos preview users including AWS and Mozilla indicate that while the model is very good and very fast at finding vulnerabilities, and requires less hands-on guidance from security engineers - making it a welcome time-saver for the human teams - it has yet to eclipse human security researchers.

"So far we've found no category or complexity of vulnerability that humans can find that this model can't," Mozilla CTO Bobby Holley said, after revealing that Mythos found 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox 150. Then he added: "We also haven't seen any bugs that couldn't have been found by an elite human researcher." In other words, it's like adding an automated security researcher to your team. Not a zero-day machine that's too dangerous for the world.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 40 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Immediately after the big announcements about Mythos there were followups by other teams that were able to find most of the same vulnerabilities with other existing models. I think the main takeaway there was that it's just a matter of actually looking. Anthropic's advantage may have been in the framework that let them do so in industrial-scale quantity rather than the cleverness of the particular model they used.

This sort of security scan is still new and important to pay attention to, but it's not something that's unique to Anthropic or that can be kept "contained." Shades of how GPT-2 was considered "too dangerous to release" back when it first appeared. Comical in hindsight, and impossible to prevent anyway.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

followups by other teams that were able to find most of the same vulnerabilities with other existing models

The one I saw was marketing hype by a company claiming to be able to do the same thing but cheaper. But when you read the fine print, you could tell that it was all just fudged.

It's comical how people who need to believe that it's all just marketing hype bought that marketing hype hook, line, and sinker. The implication that this would mean that LLMs are far, far more capable than anyone gives them credit for, completely slipped past them. Stochastic parrots with no understanding.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

LLMs can be useful in this context, but Anthropic blew Mythos way way out of proportion. It absolutely was overly hyped.

Their own demonstrator had to work with a downlevel firefox so it would still have vulnerabilities that were already fixed before they even started.

It seems that their narrative is that other tools, some LLM and some not may be as good or better than Mythos at finding issues, but there were a couple of issues where Mythos was able to actually create a demonstrator, which the other models did not do. Which is relatively less interesting, as a human going from finding to demonstrator is generally not a huge part of the tedium, the tedium usually is in the finding.

They pitched it as "it is dangerous, it will escape confinement", etc etc. But instead they had to explicitly start with a downlevel firefox with known vulnerabilities unpatched and they further had to disable all the security mitigations that in practice had already made the two "vulnerabilities" impossible to exploit.

It's a matter of degree and exaggeration.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Their own demonstrator had to work with a downlevel firefox so it would still have vulnerabilities that were already fixed before they even started.

Or as they put it, they turned Firefox 147 in an evaluation.

They pitched it as “it is dangerous, it will escape confinement”, etc etc.

I admit that I didn't study their marketing materials, but that sounds kinda off. Maybe something got garbled?

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

he implication that this would mean that LLMs are far, far more capable than anyone gives them credit for, completely slipped past them.

That's because those implications are blatant, open, clear lies. Your slop generator provides negative value to everyone except those who own it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 31 points 3 days ago

Another researcher, Davi Ottenheimer, pointed out that the security section (Section 3, pages 47-53) of Anthropic's 244-page documentation "contains no count of zero-days at all. With no CVE list, no CVSS distribution, no severity bucket, no disclosure timeline, no vendor-confirmed-novel table, no false-positive rate."

excerpts from the summary of the post linked in "Devanash ultimately concluded", a lot of which Register repeats (which I think is a good thing since the copyediting makes the language a lot more accessible and wide-reaching and of course it was credited):

The bugs are real. 17-year-old FreeBSD RCE, 23-year-old Linux kernel heap overflow, 27-year-old OpenBSD TCP flaw. LLMs catch these because they can reason about the gap between what code does and what the developer intended. Fuzzers and static analysis literally cannot do this.

The coverage is wrong on almost every detail. The “181 Firefox exploits” ran with the browser sandbox ( yes, the thing that stops browser exploits) off. The FreeBSD exploit transcript shows substantial human guidance, not autonomy. The “thousands of severe vulnerabilities” extrapolates from 198 manually reviewed reports. The Linux kernel bug was found by Opus 4.6, the public model, not Mythos.

The moat is thinner than anyone reported. AISLE tested eight models including a 3.6B model at $0.11/M tokens. All eight found the FreeBSD bug. Mythos’s actual lead is in multi-step exploit development, not detection. That’s a narrower and more replicable advantage than what’s being sold.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago

You mean the CEO of an AI focused tech startup blatantly lied? No way! This is impossible.

[–] pageflight@piefed.social 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

And if it's like a lot of security scans, most of the results are technically correct, but, within the context of the project, not something anyone's going to take the time to fix.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Note that in this case, very specifically, they had to yank Firefox's javascript engine out of Firefox "but without the browser’s process sandbox and other defense-in-depth mitigations.” They had to remove the mechanisms designed to quash vulnerabilities.

And they had to test explicitly against Firefox 147 vintage because Firefox 148 had already fixed the two issues that Mythos exploited to get an impressive number. Before Mythos even ran the key problems had been found and patched...

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

most of the results are technically correct, but, within the context of the project, not something anyone’s going to take the time to fix.

I don't mind leaving "technically correct" vulnerabilities in place while there's no known way to create an exploit. If you've got a vuln with a known exploit and are relying on "but nobody is ever going to actually try that on us" - then you're part of the problem, a big part.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is why CVE scoring is used for severity. A vuln that doesn't really give you anything, that you can only exploit locally, when already having elevated privileges? That's going to be low priority for a fix.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A vuln that doesn’t really give you anything, that you can only exploit locally, when already having elevated privileges? That’s going to be low priority for a fix.

And, yet, here I am - rebuilding a new interim image for our security team to scan so they can generate a spreadsheet with hundreds of lines of "items of concern" which are above our "threshold of concern" and most of them are being dismissed because of those justifications you just gave: local exploit only, etc. but I have to read every one, tease out the "local exploit only" language, quote it for the justification, over and over and over every few months.

Corporate anxiety is limitless.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're allowed to do that? Must be nice. We recently got told that you get one six-month justification, after that it must be remediated.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago

These are vulnerabilities for local access on a console which is operated in kiosk mode - users never have command line access, and the consoles themselves are rarely if ever network connected.

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It might be a config thing, but pretty often these scans will find issues which are only relevant on e.g. windows, when building a Linux container. Or the issue is in some XML parsing library in the base OS but the service never receives XML and isn't public facing anyway. Context matters.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 days ago

One that I have to copy-paste over and over are vulnerabilities in the CUPS printer driver chain that don't apply because we don't print arbitrary things, we only print things that we create. Yeah, there's a vulnerability here in image-magick if you throw it such and such maliciously crafted... well, we only allow it to process our internally generated reports and there's no pathway for maliciously crafted input to reach it, so...

[–] artyom@piefed.social 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I don't understand what they're saying. Mythos can't find vulnerabilities that humans can't, but it also supposedly found 271 vulns so...the humans were just ignoring them?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Speaking generally...

One is that it was pitched as a superhuman AI that could think in ways humans couldn't possibly imagine, escaping any security measure we might think to bond it with. That was the calibrated expectation.

Instead it's fine at security "findings", that a human could have noticed if they actually looked. For a lot of AI this is the key value prop, looking when a human can't be bothered to look and seeing less than a human would, but the human never would have looked. For example a human can more reliably distinguish a needle from a straw of hay, but the relentless attention of an AI system would be a more practical approach for finding needles in haystacks. It will miss some needles and find some hay, so a human effort would have been better, but the AI is better than nothing, especially with a human to discard the accidental hay.

Another thing is the nuance of the "vulnerabilities" may be very underwhelming. Anyone who has been in the security world knows that the vast majority of reported "vulnerabilities" are nothing burgers in practice. Curl had a "security" issue where a malicious command line could make it lock up instead of timeout if the peer stops responding. I've seen script engines that were explicitly designed to allow command execution get cves because a 4gb malicious script could invoke commands without including the exec directive, and also this engine is only ever used by people with unfettered shell access anyway. Had another "critical" vulnerability, but required an authorized user to remove and even rewrite the code that listens to the network to allow unsanitized data in that's normally caught by the bits they disabled. Curl had another where they could make it output vulnerable c code, then the attacker would "just" have to find a way to compile the output of the command and they'd have a vulnerable c executable... How in the world are they able to get curl to generate c code and compile it but not otherwise be able to write whatever c code they want.... Well no one can imagine it, but hey, why not a CVE...

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Finding" bugs by throwing shit at the walls and assuming people will sort it out provides negative value. You technically are finding bugs, but you could do the same just assuming every line of your code contains five bugs. The question is in "and then what", and the answer is "someone needs to sort them out and deal with it", and if you have people who can fix the bug, they're perfectly capable of finding it themselves. The bugs still exist because there is not enough people to fix that. And slop gen doesn't help with that either.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 2 days ago

It's only a negative value if the AI+review process takes longer than a human just finding the bugs.

One of the biggest hurdles in infosec right now is just the sheer volume of data. Sifting through hoards of data and finding anomalies is something AI actually excels at.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Over my head. Also light mode hurts my head.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

TLDR: Mythos is strictly worse at finding vulnerabilities than Opus 4.6, and about on par with a specific cheapo open source 2B parameters (=> tiny and super cheap) model.

It's all marketing and no substance.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

The document from Anthropic purporting to be a security research work largely leaves things vague (marketing material vague) and declines to use any recognized standard for even possibly hinting about whether to think anything at all. They describe a pretty normal security reality ('thousands of vulnerabilities' but anyone who lives in CVE world knows that was the case before, so nothing to really distinguish from status quo).

Then in their nuanced case study, they had to rip out a specific piece of firefox to torture and remove all the security protections that would have already secured these 'problems'. Then it underperformed existing fuzzer and nearly all of it's successes were based on previously known vulnerabilities that had already been fixed, but they were running the unpatched version to prove it's ability.

Ultimately, the one concrete thing they did was prove that if you fed Mythos two already known vulnerabilities, it was able to figure out how to explicitly exploit those vulnerabilities better than other models. It was worse at finding vulnerabilities, but it could make a demonstrator. Which a human could have done, and that's not the tedious part of security research, the finding is the tedious part. Again, in the real world, these never would have worked, because they had to disable a bunch of protections that already neutered these "issues" before they ever were known.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 12 points 3 days ago (3 children)

In other words, it’s like adding an automated security researcher to your team. Not a zero-day machine that’s too dangerous for the world.

Missing the point? Hiring an elite human researcher isn't easy, or cheap. It's beyond the means of the vast majority of people out there. $20/Month Claude Pro subscription? Not so much.

The question for me: How much better is Mythos than Opus 4.6 or 4.7, or Sonnet for that matter? Those models and similar from other companies are already being effectively leveraged by threat actors. If Mythos reduces the time x money cost of finding a new zero-day by a factor of 10 vs Opus 4.7 - that's concerning. If it's a factor of 1.1 - meh... the world is going to have to learn how to deal with these things sooner than later, and that means the "white hats" are going to need superior funding to the "black hats" along with cooperation to close the gaps they find, or the "black hats" are going to be getting a lot more annoying than they already are.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People for some reason assume that you can pay $20 for a bot and it will do something. You need a person with a lot of experience to get something useful from this bot, and every time we actually measure, the results that your experienced person will be quicker and better not using it at all, and doing the same work themselves.
The corporate solution is to hire a not experienced person to wrangle the bots, but that's a sure way to introduce bugs, not fix them.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago

You need a person with a lot of experience to get something useful from this bot,

Not entirely true. You get a lot more useful things from the bots when they are driven with people with a lot of experience. The problem that's coming now is a magnified version of the "skript kiddiez" from early Google days where inexperienced people could just find exploits on the web and copy-paste them. Today, the LLMs actually can find vulns and develop exploits for people who don't have any knowledge of the languages the exploits are being written in.

every time we actually measure, the results that your experienced person will be quicker and better not using it at all, and doing the same work themselves.

From my perspective, your data is out of date. I've been tracking the "usefulness" of frontier models in accelerating development speed for experienced people over the past 2 years. Two years ago, total waste of time. One year ago - equivocal, sometimes it accelerates an implementation, sometimes not. Six months ago, it was clearly helping more than hurting in most cases, and it has only continued to improve since then.

Knowing what you are doing helps. Trusting that the LLM will help, helps - if you set out to show it's a waste of time, a waste of time it will be. Lately, treating the LLM like a consultant, just hired, likely to disappear any day, helps. Take the time to run all the formal processes, develop the requirements documentation, tests, etc. Yes, that "slows things down" but not in the long run across realistic project life cycles - even with humans doing the work. Also along those lines: keep designs modular, with modules of reasonable complexity - monolithic monster blocks of logic don't maintain well for people either. LLM implementations start falling apart when their effective context windows get exceeded (and, in truth, people do too.)

[–] ashughes@feddit.uk 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How much better is Mythos than Opus 4.6 or 4.7, or Sonnet for that matter?

Opus 4.6 resulted in 22 fixes in Firefox 148, compared to 271 fixes with Mythos in Firefox 150.

source

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Firefox 150 must have been riddled with bugs 😮

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Firefox is a massive program, so yeah it's gonna have a lot of bugs. Even a simple HTML rendering browser is a complex program.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago

It was a joke trying to suggest that not Mythos got better, but Firefox got worse.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Does this mean browsers are going to crash less in the near future?

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What do you do with your browsers so they crash? Mine didn't do that in at least a decade

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

More often than crashing outright, I hit situations where the browser just isn't working, won't load pages or won't execute button clicks on pages or similar and the only thing (on Windows) that will fix it is a reboot. In Linux usually closing the browser and restarting will get it going again. Yeah, BSODs are rare lately (though not entirely gone), but malfunctions still abound.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Interesting. So far, all my experiences with stuff like that turned out to be faulty hardware.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago

My last (confirmed) faulty hardware crash (resulting from user operation, not just an outright failure to boot, or random crash "for no particular reason" other than a program trying to access a failing SSD or similar) came in the late 90s with a GPU card that would take down the system bus voltage in response to certain CAD operations - repeatably - do this rotation, watch the CPU do a hard reboot every time. Stay away from the GPU heavy operations - no problems.

These days the browser is the OS for over half of what happens on my work machines. And they're almost, but not quite, 100% reliable, until they're not. Working out those rare problems takes a long time, and with "progress" it feels like they've reached a kind of equilibrium where the rate of new problem introduction is about the same as the rate of known problem fixes.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hiring an elite security researcher isn't easy, or cheap"

You still need to hire one:

https://feddit.org/post/28915273/12684094

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago

no CVE list, no CVSS distribution, no severity bucket, no disclosure timeline, no vendor-confirmed-novel table, no false-positive rate

Yeah, that's cooked data - it's too easy to ask the LLM to give you the CVE list, the CVSS distribution / severity buckets, timelines, everything you might want.

I have LLMs doing pull request reviews and as a default response they just give potshots, but if you prompt them they will point directly to the files and line numbers where the problems they are pointing out reside...