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

Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 345 posts

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#211

Post by SecretDreams »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #196
amazingamazing wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about?

I’ll try to steelman this comment. Anyone who uses coding tools knows that the output is heavily affected by details of the task you give it. The same model can give you garbage code or genius code for the same problem with slightly different framing. So it’s not necessarily a limitation in the model’s training that causes it to output security bugs. The model might be great at writing secure code, but you need a dif…

In every prompt: "write me code without exploitable bugs".

I know it doesn't work so easily as someone who uses AI for coding, but I do find repetition of basics in almost every prompt keeps the AI focused.

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#212

Post by hqt124 »

tptacek wrote: post #197
aSJH1 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are linking to a Wikipedia page in which I am literally cited (I presented a hypervisor malware detection scheme at the Black Hat conference where Joanna Rutkowska presented this; it was a whole thing). I'm telling you that the term makes no sense in this thread. I think you meant to use a different term.

[flagged]

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#213

Post by SecretDreams »

jimmy2times wrote: post #58
winstonwinston wrote: post #54

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?

The AIs have already figured out how to succeed in a software job: 1. Ship bugs 2. Fix them 3. You're the hero!

Meanwhile, experienced humans learned to succeed by not overachieving every second of the day to keep a steady flow of work going. Then a junior rolls up who wants to kill themselves to climb the ladder - but, problem solved, sub the AI in for the juniors to protect the seniors.

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#214

Post by bewuethr »

cassianoleal wrote: post #176
tomjakubowski wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder this too. I prompted Opus 4.7 to generate some Python threading code for me. The code to run the sub-thread looked like this: def run(): with contextlib.suppress(SystemExit): do_thread_thing() threading.Thread(target=run, daemon=True).start() Suppressing SystemExit was surprising, and made me curious. I followed up and asked the model: what's the purpose of that? The model's response: "Honestly? Cargo-cultin…

I had some shell scripts littered with `|| true`, which was obviously obscuring real errors everywhere. When I challenged the model, it gave me the same "cargo-culting" answer.

The `|| true` is often done because people use `errexit` as part of "Bash strict mode"[1], which comes with so many caveats[2] that I usually avoid it. Claude, however, loves it.

[1]: http://redsymbol.net/articles/unofficial-bash-strict-mode/

[2]: https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls#set_-euo_pipefail

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#215

Post by SecretDreams »

moomin wrote: post #142
mukmuk wrote: post #122

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’re right, it’s a valid data point. But the U.K. government report is also a data point, and the Firefox report is a data point, and they suggest that it is, indeed, significantly better than current generation models. Maybe curl is significantly better hardened than most projects? In any event, it barely matters. As Anthropic acknowledges, next level models are comings, theirs is only one of them. Current generat…

I think for every point, we need to know how many tokens and cost were burned to achieve a desired outcome. And how buggy each software was to start.

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#216

Post by jzer0cool »

winstonwinston wrote: post #54
mdeeks wrote: post #34

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?

New era of cat and mouse.

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#217

Post by mrtesthah »

gofreddygo wrote: post #199
mdeeks wrote: post #34

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…

This got me thinking, so what happens in two years? every tom, dick and harry who can type english has the tools to attack any software that isn't patched. tools that were accessible to specialized groups, now made available to anybody with a grudge and a few dollars for tokens. and what does anthropic and openai do? They form an inner ring to make the latest models available first to Enterprises. Enterprises will co…

I would say that if this sounds untenable to you, then you may want to consider that the way we architect software has itself been untenable for a while. What Mythos can accomplish today in public, an APT unit can already accomplish in secret.

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#218

Post by slater »

hqt124 wrote: post #212
tptacek wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are linking to a Wikipedia page in which I am literally cited (I presented a hypervisor malware detection scheme at the Black Hat conference where Joanna Rutkowska presented this; it was a whole thing). I'm telling you that the term makes no sense in this thread. I think you meant to use a different term.

[flagged]

What's with the nonstop new accounts...?

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#219

Post by TOMDM »

gck1 wrote: post #163
skybrian wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article explains, they mostly haven't been disclosed, because they're not fixed. They're giving people 90 days, or 45 after a patch is made.

> haven't been disclosed, because they're not fixed. That's convinient. But wait, don't they have this amazing AI that can fix all the issues itself with a single /goal command? What's the holdup?

From the article

> As we noted above, the bottleneck in fixing bugs like these is the human capacity to triage, report, and design and deploy patches for them.

...

> To begin, we’ve released Claude Security in public beta for Claude Enterprise customers. It’s a tool that helps teams scan their codebases for vulnerabilities, and which can generate proposed fixes for them. In the three weeks since launch, Claude Opus 4.7 has been used to patch over 2,100 vulnerabilities. (This is faster than the open-source patching described above in large part because enterprises are fixing their own code, whereas open-source fixes usually require volunteer maintainers who work through coordinated disclosure.)

Your critique of the article would likely land much better if you engaged with it.

Re: Project Glasswing: An Initial Update

#220

Post by kirtivr »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #2

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.

Training for Mythos finished in February, 2026 while training for Opus 4.7 finished around that same time.

If I understand correctly, Opus 4.7 was launched as nerfed Mythos with some improvements from 4.6.

Anthropic launches major bumps (like 4.6 to 4.7) every 4 - 5 months. So by all accounts, Mythos should be released by July.

The problem reduces to: How quickly can competing models surpass Opus 4.7 and start taking over Anthropic's market share?

Post reply on HN