alt Hacker NewsEvaluating and mitigating the growing risk of LLM-discovered 0-days
Comments
Glad to see that they brought in humans to validate and patch vulnerabilities. Although, I really wish they linked to the actual patches. Here's what I could find:
https://cgit.ghostscript.com/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/ghostpdl.git/c...
Grepping for strcat() is at the "forefront of cybersecurity"? The other one that applied a GitHub comment to a different location does not look too difficult either.
Everything that comes out of Anthropic is just noise but their marketing team is unparalleled.
> Our view is this is a moment to move quickly—to empower defenders and secure as much code as possible while the window exists.
Yawn.
"Evaluating and mitigating the growing risk of LLM-developed 0-days" would be much more interesting and useful. Try harder, guys.
Is there a polymarket on the first billion dollar AI company to 0$ by their own insecure Model deployment?
This reads like an advertisement for Anthropic, not a technical article.
The post is light on details, and I agree with the sentiment that it reads like marketing. That said, Opus 4.6 is actually a legitimate step up in capability for security research, and the red team at Anthropic – who wrote this post – are sincere in their efforts to demonstrate frontier risks.
Opus 4.6 is a very eager model that doesn't give up easily. Yesterday, Opus 4.6 took the initiative to aggressively fuzz a public API of a frontier lab I was investigating, and it found a real vulnerability after 100+ uninterrupted tool calls. That would have required lots of of prodding with previous models.
If you want to experience this directly, I'd recommend recording network traffic while using a web app, and then pointing Claude Code at the results (in Chrome, this is Dev Tools > Network > Export HAR). It makes for hours of fun, but it's also a bit scary.