All this Mythos talk reminds me of fuzzing. The number of vulnerabilities discovered greatly increased. But bugs were patched (often, without even assigning CVEs), systems were upgraded, life continued. Outside of the tech world (and even within it), nobody noticed. Many software companies still have not adopted fuzzing.
If Claude finds security issues, so what. Some systems might not be updated, but these systems are vulnerable to even a single security issue, they were unsafe already. Systems that are upgraded don't have that problem. In fact a high rate of security fixes will make them safer, as zero-days kept in secret by government security agencies for long time become patched.
With fuzzing we didn't see articles talking about the geopolitics of security vulnerabilities. Investors didn't finance fuzzing startups with hundreds of billions. There is way too much propaganda.
If Claude finds security issues, so what. Some systems might not be updated, but these systems are vulnerable to even a single security issue, they were unsafe already. Systems that are upgraded don't have that problem. In fact a high rate of security fixes will make them safer, as zero-days kept in secret by government security agencies for long time become patched.
With fuzzing we didn't see articles talking about the geopolitics of security vulnerabilities. Investors didn't finance fuzzing startups with hundreds of billions. There is way too much propaganda.