Linux kernel boss Linus Torvalds has declared the project’s security mailing list has become “almost entirely unmanageable” due to multiple researchers using AI to find bugs and then filling the list with duplicate reports. Torvalds used his weekly state of the kernel post to deliver release candidate four for Linux 7.1 and report “fairly normal” progress towards a full release. He then pointed kernelistas to the project’s documentation, which he wrote “might be worth highlighting” as “the continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list almost entirely unmanageable, with enormous duplication due to different people finding the same things with the same tools.” “People spend all their time just forwarding things to the right people or saying ‘that was already fixed a week/month ago’ and pointing to the public discussion,” Torvalds complained. The Penguin Emperor believes that kind of chatter is “all entirely pointless churn” and isn’t productive because “AI detected bugs are pretty much by definition not secret, and treating them on some private list is a waste of time for everybody involved – and only makes that duplication worse because the reporters can't even see each other's reports.” He then offered an opinion on how best to use AI to improve software security. “AI tools are great, but only if they actually help, rather than cause unnecessary pain and pointless make-believe work,” he wrote. “Feel free to use them, but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better experience.” “The documentation may be a bit less blunt than I am,” he added, “but that's the core gist of it.” “So just to make it really clear: If you found a bug using AI tools, the chances are somebody else found it too. If you actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch too, and add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by ‘send a random report with no real understanding’ kind of person. OK?” Torvalds' remarks contrast with recent comments from fellow kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman, who recently told The Register that AI has become an increasingly useful tool for the FOSS community. ®

Drew and Ethan sit down with Tony Bourke to determine whether TradCore or EVPN VXLAN is right for your network. Tony is a seasoned instructor in automation, network design, and more. They explore the key factors for choosing a design, including scale and redundancy, operational complexity, and workload mobility. AdSpot Sponsor: Auvik Sponsor Auvik Network... Read more »



Download audio: https://feeds.packetpushers.net/link/17420/17350902/HN829.mp3

Last month, Anthropic made a remarkable announcement about its new model, Claude Mythos Preview: it was so good at finding security vulnerabilities in software that the company would not release it to the general public. Instead, it would only be available to a select group of companies to scan and fix their own software.

The announcement requires context—but it contained an essential truth.

While Anthropic’s model is really good at finding software vulnerabilities, so are other models. The UK’s AI Security Institute found that OpenAI’s GPT-5.5, already generally available, is comparable in capability. The company Aisle reproduced Anthropic’s published results with smaller, cheaper models.

At the same time, Anthropic’s refusal to publicly release its new model makes a virtue out of necessity. Mythos is very expensive to run, and the company doesn’t appear to have the resources for a general release. What better way to juice the company’s valuation than to hint at capabilities but not prove them, and then have others parrot their claims?

Nonetheless, the truth is scary. Modern generative AI systems—not just Anthropic’s, but OpenAI’s and other, open-source models—are getting really good at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software. And that has important ramifications for cybersecurity: on both the offense and the defense.

Attackers will use these capabilities to find, and automatically hack, vulnerabilities in systems of all kinds. They will be able to break into critical systems around the world, sometimes to plant ransomware and make money, sometimes to steal data for espionage purposes, and sometimes to control systems in times of hostility. This will make the world a much more dangerous, and more volatile, place.

But at the same time, defenders will use these same capabilities to find, and then patch, many of those same systems. For example, Mozilla used Mythos to find 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox. Those vulnerabilities have been fixed, and will never again be available to attackers. In the future, AIs automatically finding and fixing vulnerabilities in all software will be a normal part of the development process, which will result in much more secure software.

Of course, it’s not that simple. We should expect a deluge of both attackers using newly found vulnerabilities to break into systems, and at the same time much more frequent software updates for every app and device we use. But lots of systems aren’t patchable, and many systems that are don’t get patched, meaning that many vulnerabilities will stick around. And it does seem that finding and exploiting is easier than finding and fixing. All of this points to a more dangerous short-term future. Organizations will need to adapt their security to this new reality.

But it’s the long term that we need to focus on. Mythos isn’t unique, but it’s more capable than many models that have come before. And it’s less capable than models that will come after. AIs are much better at writing software than they were just six months ago. There’s every reason to believe that they will continue to get better, which means that they will get better at writing more secure software. The endgame gives AI-enhanced defenders advantages over AI-enhanced attackers.

Even more interesting are the broader implications. The same searching, pattern-matching and reasoning capabilities that make these models so good at analyzing software almost certainly apply to similar systems. The tax code isn’t computer code, but it’s a series of algorithms with inputs and outputs. It has vulnerabilities; we call them tax loopholes. It has exploits; we call them tax avoidance strategies. And it has black hat hackers: attorneys and accountants.

Just as these models are finding hundreds of vulnerabilities in complex software systems, we should expect them to be equally effective at finding many new and undiscovered tax loopholes. I am confident that the major investment banks are working on this right now, in secret. They’ve fed AI the tax code of the US, or the UK, or maybe every industrialized country, and tasked the system with looking for money-saving strategies. How many tax loopholes will those AIs find? Ten? One hundred? One thousand? The Double Dutch Irish Sandwich is a tax loophole that involves multiple different tax jurisdictions. Can AIs find loopholes even more complex? We have no idea.

Sure, the AIs will come up with a bunch of tricks that won’t work, but that’s where those attorneys and accountants come in—to verify, and then justify, the loopholes. And then to market them to their wealthy clients.

As goes the tax code, so goes any other complex system of rules and strategies. These models could be tasked with finding loopholes in environmental rules, or food and safety rules—anywhere there are complex regulatory systems and powerful people who want to evade those rules.

The results will be much worse than insecure computers. Tax loopholes result in less revenue collected by governments, and regulatory loopholes allow the powerful to skirt the rules, both of which have all sorts of social ramifications. And while software vendors can patch their systems in days, it generally takes years for a country to amend its tax code. And that process is political, with lobbyists pressuring legislators not to patch. Just look at the carried interest loophole, a US tax dodge that has been exploited for decades. Various administrations have tried to close the vulnerability, but legislators just can’t seem to resist lobbyists long enough to patch it.

AI technologies are poised to remake much of society. Just as the industrial revolution gave humans the ability to consume calories outside of their bodies at scale, the AI revolution will give humans the ability to perform cognitive tasks outside of their bodies at scale. Our systems aren’t designed for that; they’re designed for more human paces of cognition. We’re seeing it right now in the deluge of software vulnerabilities that these models are finding and exploiting. And we will soon see it in a deluge of vulnerabilities in all sorts of other systems of rules. Adapting to this new reality will be hard, but we don’t have any choice.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian.

You can't trust anyone these days! Get together with seven of your colleagues, and there’s a decent chance one of the eight will say they’ve either sold company login details in the past year or know someone who has, says UK fraud prevention outfit Cifas. That 13 percent figure is shocking. Just as strikingly, Cifas found a similar 13 percent of employees overall believed selling access to company systems was justifiable, though the org’s Workplace Fraud Trends report did not spell out those justifications. Regardless, Cifas says it suggests that there’s a worrying shift happening among attitudes toward insider-enabled fraud that should trouble leadership. Then again, leadership might not be too worried based on the data. Cifas doesn’t give a precise number for the share of rank-and-file employees who feel selling credentials is justified, but it does call attention to how leadership feels, and the more power they have, the more they seem to think it’s okay to sell their access. Thirty-two percent of managers, 36 percent of directors, and 43 percent of C-suite executives said it was justifiable to sell their login details. Even more shockingly, a full 81 percent of business owners felt the exact same way. As for why, that’s not entirely clear, though Cifas told us it’s heard various excuses in the past. Financial challenges, the belief it would be a harmless one-off, confidence they wouldn’t get caught, and disgruntlement were among the reasons cited for selling credentials. If you’re wondering who to keep an eye on, Cifas suggests looking at IT and telecoms professionals, who showed the highest tolerance for fraud-related behavior across multiple scenarios covered in the study. Those scenarios included the aforementioned selling of login details, as well as secretly moonlighting for a competitor, using fraudulent references on job applications, expense fraud, and the like. Selling access to company systems was one of the less common types of fraud covered in the survey, but the 13 percent figure reflects respondents who said they had done it or knew someone who had - meaning that, in a company of 1,000 people, around 130 might report direct or indirect exposure to the behavior. The fact that leadership respondents and IT and telecoms professionals showed higher tolerance for such activity makes the findings more concerning, even if the survey focused specifically on selling login details, in some cases to a former colleague. This data is specific to the UK, mind you, but there’s no reason to assume a relaxed attitude toward such a critical cybersecurity weakness is confined to the Isles - that’s just as likely as the person buying those credentials keeping it to themselves. When asked if Cifas had comparable data from prior years to compare this to, the organization described its findings as revealing “a worrying shift in attitudes toward insider-enabled fraud.” However, the firm said that this is the first year it compiled this report, so it doesn’t have comparable data. Nonetheless, Cifas Director of Learning Rachael Tiffen said in a press release that the point is that organizations need to be aware of how many employees might be willing to sell access to company systems. “These findings show how vital it is for organisations to build fraud‑aware cultures, where employees at all levels understand their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions,” Tiffen said. Be sure to pay them well, too. ®

The anonymous security researcher who has already maliciously exposed three Windows zero-days this year has revealed two more, dropping them just after Microsoft's monthly Patch Tuesday update. Nightmare-Eclipse, or Chaotic Eclipse, depending on which of their aliases you prefer, released details about YellowKey and GreenPlasma - respectively a BitLocker bypass and a privilege escalation flaw, handing SYSTEM access to attackers. Experts speaking to The Register warned that both vulnerabilities present serious security concerns, especially since Nightmare-Eclipse released substantial technical information about exploiting them. Nightmare-Eclipse described YellowKey as "one of the most insane discoveries I ever found." They provided the files, which have to be loaded onto a USB drive, and if the attacker completes the key sequence correctly, they are granted unrestricted shell access to a BitLocker-protected machine. When it comes to claims like these, we usually exercise some caution, as this bug requires physical access to a Windows PC. However, seeing that BitLocker acts as Windows' last line of defense for stolen devices, bypassing the technology grants thieves the ability to access encrypted files. Rik Ferguson, VP of security intelligence at Forescout, said: "If [the researcher's claim] holds up, a stolen laptop stops being a hardware problem and becomes a breach notification." Despite the physical access requirement, Gavin Knapp, cyber threat intelligence principal lead at Bridewell, told The Register that YellowKey remains "a huge security problem for organizations using BitLocker." Citing information shared in cyber threat intelligence circles, he added that YellowKey can be mitigated by implementing a BitLocker PIN and a BIOS password lock. Nightmare-Eclipse hinted at YellowKey also acting as a backdoor, allegedly injected by Microsoft, although the people we spoke to said this was impossible to verify based on the information available. The researcher also published partial exploit code for GreenPlasma, rather than a fully formed proof of concept exploit (PoC). Ferguson noted attackers need to take the code provided by the researcher and figure out how to weaponize it themselves, which is no small task: in its current state it triggers a UAC consent prompt in default Windows configurations, meaning a silent exploit remains a work in progress. Knapp warned that these kinds of privilege escalation flaws are often used by attackers after they gain an initial foothold in a victim's system. "These elevation of privilege vulnerabilities are often weaponized during post-exploitation to enable threat actors to discover and harvest credentials and data, before moving laterally to other systems, prior to end goals such as data theft and/or ransomware deployment," he said. "Currently, there is no known mitigation for GreenPlasma. It will be important to patch when Microsoft addresses the issue." Four, five… and more? YellowKey and GreenPlasma are the latest in a series of five Microsoft zero-day bugs the researcher has exposed this year. When Nightmare-Eclipse released BlueHammer (CVE-2026-32201, 6.5) - patched by Microsoft in April - they were described as a disgruntled researcher who has since been rumored to be a former Microsoft employee. According to their maiden blog post under the Chaotic Eclipse alias, the bug leak began after an alleged violation of trust. "I never wanted to reopen a blog and a new GitHub account to drop code," they wrote. "But someone violated our agreement and left me homeless with nothing. They knew this will happen and they still stabbed me in the back anyways, this is their decision not mine." In early April, the researcher leaked proof-of-concept code for Windows Defender exploits they called RedSun and UnDefend - another admin privilege escalation bug and denial-of-service flaw, respectively - as well as BlueHammer. Both RedSun and UnDefend remain unfixed, and according to Huntress, the proof-of-concept code released was quickly picked up and abused in real-world attacks. Ferguson described the exposure of YellowKey and GreenPlasma as the latest in an escalating, retaliatory campaign against Microsoft, and warned of more coming. "Prior releases include BlueHammer and RedSun, both of which attracted serious community attention and real forks," he said. "The same post linking yesterday's releases warns of another Patch Tuesday surprise and hints at future RCE disclosures. They claim to have a dead man's switch with more ready to go. This researcher has followed through on every prior threat." ®

Mozilla fixed 423 Firefox security bugs in April, a repair rate more than five times higher than the 76 fixes issued in March and almost 20 times higher than its 21.5 monthly average last year. The browser maker previously said Anthropic's ballyhooed Mythos Preview model found 271 of these in Firefox 150. Now, a trio of technical types has come forward to provide a bit more detail about what Mythos (and its less storied sibling Opus 4.6) actually found. But they also highlight something that may matter more than the model: the agentic harness – the middleware mediating between AI and the end user. Brian Grinstead, Firefox distinguished engineer, Christian Holler, Firefox tech lead, and Frederik Braun, head of the Firefox security team, observe that over the past few months, AI-generated security reports have gone from slop to rather more tasty. They attribute the transformation to better models and development of better ways of harnessing those models – steering them in a way that increases the ratio of signal to noise. But they also appear to be aware that there's some skepticism in the security community about Mythos. So they've decided to publicize selected wins in an effort to encourage others to jump aboard the AI bug remediation train. "Ordinarily we keep detailed bug reports private for several months after shipping fixes and issuing security advisories, largely as a precaution to protect any users who, for whatever reason, were slow to update to the latest version of Firefox," they said. "Given the extraordinary level of interest in this topic and the urgency of action needed throughout the software ecosystem, we’ve made the calculated decision to unhide a small sample of the reports behind the fixes we recently shipped." The post links to a dozen Firefox bugs with varying degrees of severity. The list includes, for example, a 20-year-old heap use-after-free bug (high severity) that a web page could trigger using the XSLTProcessor DOM API without any user interaction. Many of these bugs are sandbox escapes, they note, which are difficult to find using techniques like fuzzing. AI analysis, they say, helps provide broader security coverage. And they add that it has helped validate prior browser hardening work designed to prevent prototype pollution attacks – audit logs showed AI models making unsuccessful exploitation attempts using this technique. Following Anthropic's announcement of Project Glasswing – a program for companies to gain early access to Mythos because it's touted as too dangerous for public release – security experts expressed skepticism. For example, Davi Ottenheimer, president of security consultancy flyingpenguin, wrote in an April 13 blog post, "The supposedly huge Anthropic 'step change' appears to be little more than a rounding error. The threat narrative so far appears to be ALL marketing and no real results. The Glasswing consortium is regulatory capture dressed up poorly as restraint." He subsequently ran a test in which he strapped Anthropic's lesser models Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku 4.5 into a harness called Wirken with an auditing skill called Lyrik. The result was eight findings in two minutes at a cost of about $0.75, Ottenheimer claims, noting that two of the eight matched bugs Mythos had identified. Other security folk have also reported that bug hunting and exploit development can be quite productive with off-the-shelf models like Opus 4.6, which among other virtues costs about 5x less than Mythos. In an email to The Register, Ottenheimer said, "There's a fundamental philosophical failure in the Mozilla post. A reading and a measurement are not the same thing. I don't see a measurement, but they seem to want us to believe we're looking at one. "When they give us the 'behind the scenes math' it's circular, a trick. 'Mythos found 271 bugs' is what Mythos found, not what other tools could not find against the same code. Why leave it as an assumption if it can be proven?" Ottenheimer said Mozilla advocates that every project adopt a similar approach without proving the merits of that approach. "It's like saying if you don't drink Coca-Cola, you can't run a mile under six minutes, because that's what a guy sponsored by Coca-Cola just did," he said. "The bar moves on rhetoric, marketing, not proper evidence. That is the capture crew again." He notes that the merits of Mythos might be more convincing if Mozilla had reported they couldn't do this work without Mythos. And since they're not saying that, he suggests, it's worth asking why there's no transparent comparison of Mythos to other models. He points to Mozilla's admission that Opus 4.6 was already identifying "an impressive amount of previously unknown vulnerabilities." "Mozilla never quantifies what Opus 4.6 [did] before saying what Mythos added," he said. "So 271 attributed to Mythos doesn't fit the analysis. And there's a deeper reveal when they say 'we dramatically improved our techniques for harnessing these models.' The improvement may be entirely in the harness, not as much in the model. This maps to my own experience. A nail gun has advantages over the hammer, yet without being in the right hands the outputs are as bad or worse." ®