131–140 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the article they describe how all the vulns are actually exploitable end to end and >1000 have been independently verified as critical. These aren't unreachable vulns.
Where is the link to the advisories then? :/
You can get a taste of this today yourself with Codex Security. I turned it on just as an experiment and in less than a week it has now become essential to all of us. I was shocked how accurate it is, how many security issues it found in existing code, how it continually finds them as we commit, and how NO ONE is immune from making these mistakes. I'd say it is about 90% accurate for us. Often even the "Low" findings…
Dude is flexing that he's pushing unsecure code every day, that's a skill!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I expect tools like this to be a regular part of the development lifecycle from here on. We code with AI, we review with AI, we search for vulns with AI. Even if it isn't perfect, it is easily worth the cost IMHO. So, how is that supposed to work? Claude Code generates security bugs, then Claude Security finds them, then Claude Code generate fix, spend tokens, profit?
Ngl, watching folks getting irritated about normal employer-employee absurdities from the employer perspective through usage of agents and having to pay for tokens has been a little therapeutic for me.
On a broader scale, the sheer face-eating-leopards-ness of programmers finally automating away our own jobs and then realising how much this sucks, after automating away so many other kinds of jobs, can feel darkly amusing to me too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s talking about AI scanning tools collectively, not specifically Mythos. If you read his own top comment on that LinkedIn post he clarifies: “The simple reason is: the (AI powered) tools are this good now. And people use these tools against curl source code.They find lots of new problems no one detected before. And none of these new ones used Mythos. Focusing on Mythos is a distraction - there are plenty of good m…
Sure. But Mythos or not, the developments since that post was written, legitimate 11 more vulnerabilities have been found by AI tools.
I’m not sure how to reconcile anthropic’s update / some of the exuberant comments here with recent feedback like the following from curl maintainer Daniel Steinberg: “I see no evidence that this setup [Mythos] finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos. Maybe this model is a little bit better, but even if it is, it is not better to a degree that seems to…
The vulnerabilities found continues to impress, and make legacy media, Twitter and Youtube go nuts. But we still have no data to prove this wasn't doable with the same initiative backed by Opus 4.7, and there is no GA for Mythos access.
I’m not sure how to reconcile anthropic’s update / some of the exuberant comments here with recent feedback like the following from curl maintainer Daniel Steinberg: “I see no evidence that this setup [Mythos] finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos. Maybe this model is a little bit better, but even if it is, it is not better to a degree that seems to…
Different people can have different experiences without contradiction. Maybe the curl source code was pretty clean to begin with?
I’m not sure how to reconcile anthropic’s update / some of the exuberant comments here with recent feedback like the following from curl maintainer Daniel Steinberg: “I see no evidence that this setup [Mythos] finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos. Maybe this model is a little bit better, but even if it is, it is not better to a degree that seems to…
You can get a taste of this today yourself with Codex Security. I turned it on just as an experiment and in less than a week it has now become essential to all of us. I was shocked how accurate it is, how many security issues it found in existing code, how it continually finds them as we commit, and how NO ONE is immune from making these mistakes. I'd say it is about 90% accurate for us. Often even the "Low" findings…
> I expect tools like this to be a regular part of the development lifecycle from here on. We code with AI, we review with AI, we search for vulns with AI. Even if it isn't perfect, it is easily worth the cost IMHO. So, how is that supposed to work? Claude Code generates security bugs, then Claude Security finds them, then Claude Code generate fix, spend tokens, profit?
I don't buy it. A lot of stuff this finds is also just simply wrong, benignly reported as true, despite upper/lower layers in the code burying the possibility of a vulnerability actually being exploited. It's a performance/security trade-off too, it always has been. Additional checks and other measures do in fact need to be performed for security purposes. Great marketing as always, but the rose-tinted view many have…