[dead]
Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
21–30 of 49 posts
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#22> This won't be made available to anyone and everyone, but we do believe that responsible SMEs and midmarket companies also need access to these tools in order to identify key vulnerabilities in their systems; not just enterprises. So this is the same policy that Anthropic and OpenAI have, it is just based on your criteria rather than theirs.
I think the policy universally makes sense, who would want to give a tool like this to bad actors? But it does leave a big section of the market underserved. Particularly when Mythos was made accessible to very large orgs and then Fable was pulled on export grounds.
The problem is that it is a fool's errand to try to keep software tools from 'bad actors'. It is as pointless now as it was during the Crypto Wars. Information is simply too easy to move.
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tool is live, you can test it.
No, you can’t. This page is a sales funnel to schedule a 30 minute video chat with Cosine.ai or argusred or whatever. The thing you can test is not the thing that the headline is talking about. It’s just more “We’re so smart we invented the boogeyman, trust us” slop marketing that’s been happening since gpt-2
Did you follow the link? There is a brew install binary you can install and test. It's live.
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can’t. This page is a sales funnel to schedule a 30 minute video chat with Cosine.ai or argusred or whatever. The thing you can test is not the thing that the headline is talking about. It’s just more “We’re so smart we invented the boogeyman, trust us” slop marketing that’s been happening since gpt-2
Did you follow the link? There is a brew install binary you can install and test. It's live.
> Gated because the security implications are real; access is via booking
If I wanted to show off a “model that pen tests” I’d at least include a gif of it running against Juice Shop or something before the spooky language and “schedule a sales call”
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#25> This won't be made available to anyone and everyone, but we do believe that responsible SMEs and midmarket companies also need access to these tools in order to identify key vulnerabilities in their systems; not just enterprises. So this is the same policy that Anthropic and OpenAI have, it is just based on your criteria rather than theirs.
I think the policy universally makes sense, who would want to give a tool like this to bad actors? But it does leave a big section of the market underserved. Particularly when Mythos was made accessible to very large orgs and then Fable was pulled on export grounds.
Do you think bad actors can't make something like this? What are you even talking about?
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#26Relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48016224
what's the differnce between this vs running shannon on aws/bedrock fully airgapped in my vpc? I've got some pretty great results with shannon [no subprocessor and can pay via aws credits]. Even better using claude code token [effectively free with our $200/mo cc subscription]
I tried kimi but it generally spins it's wheels extensively in it's thinking tokens. kimi2.7 is an attempt at reducing this. But doing finetuning, means you will always be behind the latest.
as a side note - I think it's very unprofessional and very shitty to not mention kimi2.6 at all in your marketing copy. and i feel that you posted that in this hn post begrudgingly since the hn crowd would have flagged that. confirmed with a google search too: https://www.google.com/search?q=kimi+site%3Aargusred.com
All around your marketing website you keep mentioning - 'A model lab built it'. A fintune does not maketh you a model lab - some humility please :)
finally - doesn't Kimi's licensing prohibit you from not mentioning them? Didn't cursor run into the same issue?
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#27IMO the most interesting thing about this is Kimi K2.6, an extremely capable model, can be relatively easily post-trained to allow pen tests.
This in its own right proves that the defenses of Fable and others are temporary blocks, and AI based hacking is going to be effectively available to all parties regardless of stop gaps, as long as open models exist.
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you follow the link? There is a brew install binary you can install and test. It's live.
> Gated because the security implications are real; access is via booking If I wanted to show off a “model that pen tests” I’d at least include a gif of it running against Juice Shop or something before the spooky language and “schedule a sales call”
Fair, should've been precise. What's free today is the scan: read-only. The Bank of Anthos integer overflow is a scan finding, clone it and you'll get the same. The active mode that actually sends the exploit and shows the response is gated for now, that's the part that's really 'pen test'. Juice Shop's a fair target for showing it, will try to get this done and post an update.
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#29Any generic abliterated or ubcensored open weight model (such as a qwen variant) will happily comply with requests like this.
Re: Show HN: We post-trained a model that pen tests instead of refusing
#30IMO the most interesting thing about this is Kimi K2.6, an extremely capable model, can be relatively easily post-trained to allow pen tests. This in its own right proves that the defenses of Fable and others are temporary blocks, and AI based hacking is going to be effectively available to all parties regardless of stop gaps, as long as open models exist.
Agreed, and that's basically our premise. If a 5 person team can post-train an open model to do this, so can the people you don't want doing it, model-level refusals on open weights are a speed bump. Which is the argument for defenders having it too, not against.