Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

#21

Post by enraged_camel »

surgical_fire wrote: post #11

In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable. Anthropic needs some model with a fancy name so they can pretend for another while that their model is so powerful it will destroy the world if released. I propose Claude Legend 6.

>> In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable.

Is it, though?

We don't know what Mythos is really capable of, beyond what Anthropic has told us, and some second-hand accounts from orgs that have been whitelisted.

What we do know is that their withholding it from the masses is causing a lot of harm to their reputation and general annoyance. And probably a lot of money as well, as those people cancel their subscriptions in favor of other models. They are about to IPO, and you don't want people to have a bad taste in their mouth during this critical period.

As such, I think it is reasonable conclude that there must in fact be very valid reasons for them to keep going down this path of gradual access-widening. I'm never going to blindly trust a corporation, but in this case I'm not going to hate on them either because, at the risk of repeating myself, we just don't have all the facts.

Re: Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

#22

Post by ganoushoreilly »

gorgmah wrote: post #7

For those who had access, how does it compare IRL with GLM 5.3 ? iirc both models are similar in terms of benchmarks ?

From a cost perspective Mythos is too expensive right now. With the right Harness and a few layers of models you can get close or better in some circumstances. Kimi / GLM, Qwen etc. And that's before ablation / Abliteration...

For those in Mythos.. if you ask how much it cost to assess their repos, your jaw would drop. We're talking the price of buying a couple machines to run Kimi / GLM full weight outright.. for one Scan.

Right now I wouldn't say GLM 5.3 is the same, but it's not far off. For the cost benefit it's the better of the two.

Re: Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

#24

Post by jnwatson »

The problem is that "cybersecurity" isn't some special task that only your security team does.

In the project I maintain, I find bugs and fix bugs. Some of those bugs might result in an LPE. I generate a regression test, then I fix the bug.

The problem is that generating a regression test for that type of bug is technically a PoC. I can almost never get Fable to create one. Sometimes Opus 5 punts as well. Same with Sol and Luna.

That is, unless I socially engineer the model. I can't talk about security. I make sure they don't read the file call cve_test.c (literal regression tests for CVEs). I have to hide part of my project from the models for them to work.

Anthropic and OpenAI are driving me to use other models.

Re: Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

#27

Post by surgical_fire »

enraged_camel wrote: post #21
surgical_fire wrote: post #11

In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable. Anthropic needs some model with a fancy name so they can pretend for another while that their model is so powerful it will destroy the world if released. I propose Claude Legend 6.

>> In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable. Is it, though? We don't know what Mythos is really capable of, beyond what Anthropic has told us, and some second-hand accounts from orgs that have been whitelisted. What we do know is that their withholding it from the masses is causing a lot of harm to their reputation and general annoyance. And probably a…

> Is it, though?

Yes, it truly is.

Open models are extremely capable, as benchmark after benchmark has indicated.

Beyond that, for the vast majority of software development (including cybersecurity), the open models are there already. All that without having to pay the hefty Anthropic premium, not to mention all their bullshit with pretending their model is some sort of WMD and their awful uptime (although, to their credit, they seem more stable than Github).

I cannot fathom why anyone uses their service.

Re: Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

#28

Post by sscaryterry »

jnwatson wrote: post #24

The problem is that "cybersecurity" isn't some special task that only your security team does. In the project I maintain, I find bugs and fix bugs. Some of those bugs might result in an LPE. I generate a regression test, then I fix the bug. The problem is that generating a regression test for that type of bug is technically a PoC. I can almost never get Fable to create one. Sometimes Opus 5 punts as well. Same with S…

Agree 100%. This is just another level of obscurity. Security through obscurity... Its annoying, very annoying.

Re: Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders

#29

Post by surgical_fire »

delichon wrote: post #19
surgical_fire wrote: post #11

In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable. Anthropic needs some model with a fancy name so they can pretend for another while that their model is so powerful it will destroy the world if released. I propose Claude Legend 6.

Do they still think they occupy the commanding heights or do they just see the need to act like it until the IPO in a few weeks?

For their IPO they better fast forward to Claude Apocalypse 7.

With how unsustainable they are they really need to hype up those bagholders.

Post reply on HN