5 ms·
Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
- ofjcihen 7mo agoI love that in the era of having LLMs summarize everything all of these companies have opted for what I call the “YouTube streamer apology video” tone and length for these announcements. These feels more or less like a way to get in the news after Anthropic's Mythos announcement by removing some guardrails. I’m still signing up though.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- alopha 7mo agoThat's a lot of waffle to try and say 'we've got a really scary next model coming too real soon, promise!'
- guzfip 7mo agoMore like they realized how much money they were wasting letting the proles generate slop and vibe code the same CRUD app they rewrote in 5 different JavaScript frameworks a few years back. The money is in enterprise and government. The consumer market doesn’t remotely pay enough. It’s just the same story with Microsoft purposely making Windows an unusable mess because that’s not where they make their money. It was good to establish themselves, but that market is getting dumped.
- flyinglizard 7mo agoWait six months, get the Chinese version.
- everlier 7mo agoChanges as we speak, z.ai is the first one to show differential pricing
- NitpickLawyer 7mo agoThe move towards "trusted partners" also acts as a way to protect from distillation.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Phelinofist 7mo agoSounds totally reasonable to trust OpenAI and the sociopath sama.
- iammjm 7mo ago"trusted" + openai just simply doesn't compute for me any more
- mmooss 7mo agoThis approach means only a tiny portion of the population will every qualify. Doesn't that make everyone else beholden to those few, who are beholden to OpenAI? Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI makes software that endangers people, it should be the same. > Democratized access: Our goal is to make these tools as widely available as possible while preventing misuse. We design mechanisms which avoid arbitrarily deciding who gets access for legitimate use and who doesn’t. That means using clear, objective criteria and methods – such as strong KYC and identity verification – to guide who can access more advanced capabilities and automating these processes over time. KYC isn't democratic and doesn't prevent arbitrary favoritism, it's the opposite: It's used to control people and to favor friends and exclude enemies.
- luma 7mo agoSo who is at fault in your solution, the org who created and shipped the software bug, or the company that discovered it? I don't see how OpenAI is Ford in your analogy as OpenAI didn't make the software that blew up.
- sureMan6 7mo ago> Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI makes software that endangers people, it should be the same. That kind of thinking is exactly why LLMs are so censored, because people think OAI should be liable if someone uses chatgpt to commit cyber crimes How about cyber crimes are already illegal and we just punish whoever uses the new tools to commit crimes instead of holding the tool maker liable This gets complex if LLMs enable children to commit complex crimes but that's different from just outright restricting the tool for everyone because someone might misuse it
- 0x3f 7mo agoThere's always some wedge issue that means "don't punish the toolkmaker" is not politically viable. You can pick from guns to legal drugs to illegal drugs to all kinds of emotive things. And once the wedge is in and the concept of maker responsibility is planted, it expands to people's pet issues, obviously. The actual line of who gets punished just ends up at some equilibrium in the middle. Largely arbitrarily.
- Havoc 7mo ago>democratized access >partner with a limited set of organizations for more cyber-permissive models. I get where they're going with this, but still rather hilarious how they had to get a corporate speak expert pull of the mental gymnastics needed for the announcement
- bunnywantspluto 7mo agoIt seems like local LLMs will get popular for cybersecurity if this trend of locking access to models continues.
- alephnerd 7mo agoNot really. Not performant enough. Most organizations who would be interested in using a foundation model for security would either purchase the model directly or purchase a vendor who adds their special sauce or context to the model
- ACCount37 7mo agoToo little too late. OpenAI's shit was nearly worthless for cybersec for what, a year already? ChatGPT 5.x just tries to deny everything remotely cybersecurity-related - to the point that it would at times rather deny vulnerabilities exist than go poke at them. Unless you get real creative with prompting and basically jailbreak it. And it was this bad BEFORE they started messing around with 5.4 access specifically. And that was ChatGPT 5.4. A model that, by all metrics and all vibes, doesn't even have a decisive advantage over Opus 4.6 - which just does whatever the fuck you want out of the box. What's I'm afraid the most of is that Anthropic is going to snort whatever it is that OpenAI is high on, and lock down Mythos the way OpenAI is locking down everything.
- jruz 7mo agoThat’s the whole point of this variant of the model, it won’t have those guardrails.
- ACCount37 7mo agoYes. But "perform a humiliation ritual of KYC to access the actual model instead of the nerfed version of it that's so neurotic about cybersec you have to sink 400 tokens into getting it to a usable baseline" does not inspire any confidence at all.
- jiggawatts 7mo agoRemember the argument that the bad guys using AI to hack systems won't be a problem because all the "good guys" will have access too and can secure their software? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
- lebovic 7mo agoIt seems reasonable for a company to require KYC for a product that's dual use – especially a novel one that's built for security research. Privacy concerns aside, the KYC process for OpenAI was self-serve and took about a minute.
- alephnerd 7mo ago
- spacebacon 7mo ago[flagged]
- ACCount37 7mo agoFirst, it looks like an "AI psychosis" paper. AI psychosis has been going through armchair philosophers the way crack was going through the low income neighborhoods back in the 80s. Second, it does not look relevant to the discussions in any way, fashion or form.
- spacebacon 7mo agoIf I didn’t empirically prove it I would agree with you. Computation and semiotics are two fields that want nothing to do with each other. The SRT is through several stages of quantitative validation. For the first time in 150 years semiotics is not a philosophy. It is proven to have computational value. The SRT bolts onto any model and improves it. I’ll be sure to link you to the benchmarks when published. The relevance is it makes these treasured black boxes irrelevant.
- ACCount37 7mo agoBold fucking claims for a "paper" that: makes an LLM with an awkward architectural tumor, and proves that it doesn't completely die on a purely synthetic task. Further than most "AI psychosis" papers go, but still not in any way far. And "makes these treasured black boxes irrelevant"? With wild claims like this, either demo a generational improvement on a live model or GTFO.
- spacebacon 7mo agoI’ve been here over a decade longer than you sport. No need to bully people out when you are only 8 months in. I will be updating here when the model is live. Expect no further engagement.
- spacebacon 7mo ago
- zb3 7mo ago> Ultimately, we aim to make advanced defensive capabilities available to legitimate actors large and small, including those responsible for protecting critical infrastructure, public services, and the digital systems people depend on every day. Translation: we aim to make defensive capabilities available to US and their vassals so they can protect critical infrastructure, while ensuring countries that are independent can't protect against US attacking their critical infrastructure. Fortunately, this plan will backfire - the model capability is exaggerated and these "safeguards" don't reliably work.
- gavinray 7mo agoI completed the "Trusted Access" verification, but it seems to have unlocked nothing in the OpenAI API or Codex models. Just FYI for others.
- hoss1474489 7mo agoI see a Security button in the what’s new box in the Codex section of the ChatGPT website. It appears to allow me to run vulnerability scans against my connected GitHub repositories. Direct link: https://chatgpt.com/codex/cloud/security https://chatgpt.com/codex/cloud/security
- gavinray 7mo agoI also have access to this but can't be certain if it was there before or not. Anyone else who hasn't verified able to access?
- Kye 7mo ago404 for me
- alphabettsy 7mo agoThat’s been there for awhile.
- ofjcihen 7mo agoSo it seems like you just…have it once you get approved. I’m testing it now and nothing indicates I’m running a different model but it just doesn’t fight me on cybersecurity stuff
- 2001zhaozhao 7mo agoRequiring verified access is a good idea to mitigate risks from hacking while still giving people access to the latest models. Take notes, Anthropic.
- striking 7mo agoA 5.4 spin with slightly different guardrails is not "access to the latest models". We know this to be true from the article because they have a section entitled "Looking ahead to our upcoming model release and beyond". I wonder if they didn't just feel like they were caught out by Mythos.
- Avicebron 7mo agoI don't think they've added enough cyber. My cyber workflow demands more trusted access for cyber so that I can use these cyber-permissive models for my cybersecurity.
- ofjcihen 7mo agoWhoa hey now, if they just give out all the cyber all at once they might run out or worse, the bad guys will horde all the cyber for themselves! No no, best to have them distribute the cyber to us responsibly.
- SoftTalker 7mo agoJust wait until you meet the Cybermen.
- TeMPOraL 7mo agoI just hope they're the Responsible Cybermen.
- swyx 7mo agoyou make fun of it but i kind of like that the security community has just embraced this kinda old school hokey term. its a short hand. leave them be.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- cshimmin 7mo agoIncidentally, I recently learned the origin of the term. Cyber - short for cybernetic - is from the greek κυβερνήτης (kybernetes), meaning helmsman. The original use of cybernetics is in the context of automated control systems, so steering a rudder was a good analogy. It is also the origin for the name k8s.
- 7mo ago
- greatgib 7mo agoAll of that reminds me about how gpt2 was almost too dangerous to be released to the world...
- onoesworkacct 7mo agoIt was. The internet really has been filled with abject shit and social media is bots talking to bots.
- keyle 7mo agoIt's not like the world is a better place since...
- nullc 7mo agoMake cyber not cyber.
- CompoundEyes 7mo agoWonder if Cyber would’ve caught the Claude Code source map leak?
- rishabhaiover 7mo agoI mean Anthropic clearly wins with the name (Mythos vs 'GPT-5.4-Cyber')
- mikewarot 7mo agoIt's important to keep perspective, the holes that everyone (including LLMs now) keep finding in pretty much everything are mostly the fault of running things with ambient authority, instead of using systems based on default deny, and capabilities. I used to think we were 20 years away from a shift to Capabilities based Operating Systems, which were ----> this <---- close to being adopted widely when the PC revolution swiped them aside. Unfortunately, I think we're about to repeat history, and we're now 20+ years out from actually solving things, AGAIN. 8(
- TeMPOraL 7mo ago"Solve things" or actually do something useful, pick one. If anything, maybe the security community can finally be arsed to consider ad-hoc delegation of authority as a core concept and a basic use case, because that's arguably the primary source of persistent user-level security issues in computing. In real life, it's absolutely normal to ask random people on the fly to do something in your name, with your credentials - whether that's sending your kid with your credit card for a grocery run, asking spouse to do some bank transfers for you or set up a new computer for you, or asking a co-worker to operate some system. It's the other reason people write passwords on post-its: even without bullshit password strength rules (see xkcd://936), there's still a frequent need to share passwords with people. Meanwhile, for the past decades, security community has been insisting on tying authority to individuals, and doing everything possible both technologically and socially to prevent authority delegation (except in top tier corporate systems, where this is technically supported, but in such convoluted, complex and broken ways that it may as well not exist - people will still resort to post-its in drawers). Until this basic concept is recognized, I fear more broad security improvements will only result in more useful work being prevented from happening, and more people-years wasted as users figure out ways to defeat security measures so they can do their actual jobs.
- Melatonic 7mo agoAre those really things people do all the time ? Not sure I would trust any kid with my credit card
- realisticid 7mo ago[dead]
- beyondscaletech 6mo ago[dead]