Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era • Hacker News Board

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#821

Post by eranation » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

Few thoughts

1. Per the blog post[0]: "This was the most critical vulnerability we discovered in OpenBSD with Mythos Preview after a thousand runs through our scaffold. Across a thousand runs through our scaffold, the total cost was under $20,000 and found several dozen more findings"

Since they said it was patched, I tried to find the CVE, it looks like Mythos indeed found a 27 years old OpenBSD bug (fantastic), but it didn’t get a CVE and OpenBSD patched it and marked it as a reliability fix, am I missing something? [1]

2. From the same post, Anthropic red team decided to do a preview of their future responsible disclosure (is this a common practice?): "As we discuss below, we’re limited in what we can report here. Over 99% of the vulnerabilities we’ve found have not yet been patched" [0] So this is great, can't wait to see the actual CVEs, exploitability, likelihood, peer review, reproducibility, the kind of things the appsec community has been doing for at least the last 27 years since the CVE concept was introduced [2]

3. On the same day, an actual responsible disclosure, actual RCEs, actual CVEs, in Claude Code, that got discovered mostly because of the source code leak, I don't see anyone talking about it (you probably should upgrade your Claude Code though).

CVE-2026-35020 [3] CVE-2026-35021 [4] CVE-2026-35022 [5]

Not making any opinion, just thought it's worth sharing, for some perspective.

[0] https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/

[1] https://www.openbsd.org/errata78.html (look for 025)

[2] https://www.cve.org/Resources/General/Towards-a-Common-Enume...

[3] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35020

[4] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35021

[5] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35022

Edit: if it was not obvious, these CVEs on Claude Code were found by an independent security researcher (Phoenix security) and not by Anthropic / Mythos.

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#822

Post by kouru225 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

burntcaramel wrote: post #716

Previously Anthropic subscribers got access to the latest AI but it seems like there’s a League of Software forming who have special privileges. To make or maintain critical software will you have to be inside the circle? Who gates access to the circle? Anthropic or existing circle members or some other governance? If you are outside the circle will you be certain to die from software diseases? Having been impressed…

They’ve been trying their hardest to find a moat for 5 years, and nothing seems to stick. At first it seemed like access to the model could be a moat but then llama and deepseek came out. Then it seemed like the hardware requirements could be a moat but small local AI just kept getting more efficient. Now they’re trying to gate keep access to the models again under the guise of security, but we probably got like t minus 2 weeks before an equivalent model is released by someone

American AI desperately wants AI to intensify the wealth disparity and therefore justify the wealth grab that the rich have done for the last 3 decades and AI is just not cooperating

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#823

Post by eranation » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

ofjcihen wrote: post #508

I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.

It feels to me full with marketing in the guise of trying to save the world from their own making. "we have a model so strong we can't release it, here are all the details of why it's so good, but don't ask for access, you can't get it, it's too risky for your own good"

Something smells really really weird:

1. Per the blog post[0]: "This was the most critical vulnerability we discovered in OpenBSD with Mythos Preview after a thousand runs through our scaffold. Across a thousand runs through our scaffold, the total cost was under $20,000 and found several dozen more findings"

Since they said it was patched, I tried to find the CVE, it looks like Mythos indeed found a 27 years old OpenBSD bug (fantastic), but it didn’t get a CVE and OpenBSD patched it and marked it as a reliability fix, am I missing something? [1]

2. From the same post, Anthropic red team decided to do a preview of their future responsible disclosure (is this a common practice?): "As we discuss below, we’re limited in what we can report here. Over 99% of the vulnerabilities we’ve found have not yet been patched" [0] So this is great, can't wait to see the actual CVEs, exploitability, likelihood, peer review, reproducibility, the kind of things the appsec community has been doing for at least the last 27 years since the CVE concept was introduced [2]

3. On the same day, an actual responsible disclosure, actual RCEs, actual CVEs, in Claude Code, that got discovered mostly because of the source code leak, I don't see anyone talking about it (you probably should upgrade your Claude Code though).

CVE-2026-35020 [3] CVE-2026-35021 [4] CVE-2026-35022 [5]

Do with this information as you may...

[0] https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/

[1] https://www.openbsd.org/errata78.html (look for 025)

[2] https://www.cve.org/Resources/General/Towards-a-Common-Enume...

[3] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35020

[4] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35021

[5] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35022

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#824

Post by fullstackchris » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

ofjcihen wrote: post #508

I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.

Agreed. Do we have any information on what these "vulnerabilities" actually are? Every vulnerability is typically immediately reported to CVE or NIST... are these "so destructive" they have to be kept behind closed doors? Give me a break...

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#825

Post by je42 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

KronisLV wrote: post #675

maccard wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree - we’re being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code, and 3 months into that the tools are unusable for complex engineering [1]. Every time I mention this I’m told “but have you tried the latest model and this particular tool” - yes I have, but if I need to be on the hottest new model for it to be functional that means the last time you claimed it was solved, it wasn’t solved. [0…

> Every time I mention this I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. I feel bad for the people for whom it doesn’t work, but Claude Opus has written most of my code in 2026 so far. I had to build some tools around linting entire projects and most of my tokens are probably referencing existing stuf…

Even co-pilot writes most of my code in april 2026.

Further, i don't trust code anymore that hasn't been reviewed 3x or more by co-pilot.

If you have asked me 6 months ago I wouldn't have expected this change so soon.

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#826

Post by mlvvkviz » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

they built a model so powerful they won't release it. but they couldn't secure claude code from a source code leak. the model is so advanced they're paying $100M to get big tech to adopt it. the launch video reads like verified amazon reviews. the gap between the narrative and the reality is the whole story here.

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#827

Post by devmor » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:44 PM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #704

devmor wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop using terms you don’t understand like “AGI” because you feel overwhelmed by something doing cool stuff. It’s exhausting.

You’re right. What I mean is - is this superhuman intelligence at cybersecurity? Or did we just build an amazing tool? But that’s kind of the whole debate

No, it's not intelligence of any kind. It's a statistical language analyzer and reconstructor. This happens to be extremely useful for targeting things like systems that consist of logic defined in structured language.

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#828

Post by notnullorvoid » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:46 PM UTC

elnerd wrote: post #578

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #52

Now, its very possible that this is Anthropic marketing puffery, but even if it is half true it still represents an incredible advancement in hunting vulnerabilities. It will be interesting to see where this goes. If its actually this good, and Apple and Google apply it to their mobile OS codebases, it could wipe out the commercial spyware industry, forcing them to rely more on hacking humans rather than hacking mobi…

Yesterday, I took a web application, downloaded the trial and asked AI to be a security researcher and find me high and critical severity bugs. Even vanilla models spew out POC for three RCE’s in less than an hour

Did you verify it's the RCEs actually work, and weren't hallucinated?

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#829

Post by slopinthebag » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

theshackleford wrote: post #683

slopinthebag wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddo

If you projected any harder I could point you at a wall and charge admission.

Thats pretty funny actually, but I'm not the one going around telling everyone they're cooked if they don't adopt my expensive workflow which disenfranchises myself from my work and makes me more replaceable.

Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

#830

Post by 0123456789ABCDE » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #511

tptacek wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that nonsense? Do you think they exhausted all their compute finding just the few big vulnerabilities they've already discussed, and don't have a budget to just keep cranking the machine to generate more? They're not publishing SHAs for things that aren't confirmed vulnerabilities. They're doing exactly the thing you'd want them to do: they claim to have vulnerabilities when they have actual vulnerabilities.

If I understand Anthropic's statements correctly, they've been cranking for a while, and what they have now is the results of Mythos-enabled vulnerability scans on every important piece of software they could find. (I do want to acknowledge how crazy it is that "vulnerability scan all important software repos in the world" is even an operation that can be performed.)

which statement, specifically, led you to interpret this claim?