There is really just one way this goes and its upwards to the peak: which means full formal verification programming languages, OS uni-kernels, small TCB and probably verified HW for the most sensitive cases. Everything else will soon be hackable via 'brute compute' because economy of scale and accessibility of open weight models.
I'd really expect a company like Anthropic to proof-read their posts. I found at least 4 typos in this.
If only Claude didn't constantly drop to less capable models whenever it encountered anything vaguely cybersecurity related (despite being part of the Anthropic Cyber Verification Program and having Mythos access, albeit limited).<p>We're strongly pushing for a move to a mix of Codex and open models at my workplace because of Anthropic's ridiculous nanny-ing.
The irony of a company using Nextjs for a chat app and React for a terminal UI talking about reducing attack surface.
React is actually pretty good for any kind of reactive interface, and it's small. Something under 3k lines of code, and it's well battle tested at this point.<p>You might have a dislike of react and that's fine, but it's not adding any significant attack surface to a project.<p>Nextjs on the other hand...
These guys are now the biggest slowdown to fixing issues with their bullshit cyber detection. They drop a model, let the model find security issues in your code, then when you want to fix them you need to play a game of charades so it doesn't realize it's creating a validation and then a fix for the issue because you might be hacking yourself. Meanwhile attackers are using some ablated deepseek or what have you.
It's frustrating. Claude thinks it finds a way to hop from one client to another, but any attempt to get it to demonstrate it isn't relying on something that's already prevented runs into "safety" concerns and gets blocked.<p>I'm not that hot on the idea of open models, but having something dangled in front of you but suddenly unable to verify is not a good feeling.<p>With the right amount of coaxing you can sometimes get it to reproduce a PoC with a "TDD first" approach to fixing, but often now that gets blocked too.
Why wouldn't everyone be hot on open models? Security implications? First time I have heard someone lightly opposing the idea of fully open models.
On the other hand this sounds like a job guarantee, though. And not only for the moment, as it is not the capability of the model which is insufficient.
So far I can always get around it by starting fresh sessions on a similar problem and without ever mentioning security issues, but why do I have to play this little theater with a tool we pay to use.
In the kingdom of vibe coderz the engineer is king!
> Meanwhile attackers are using some ablated deepseek or what have you.<p>I think the hackers are just using "not Claude".