Tracking Anthropic-discovered vulnerabilities(vulncheck.com)
447 points by panic 1 day ago | 218 comments
tl;dr: Seven months into Anthropic's Project Glasswing, only 442 CVEs have been attributed to it (0.5% of 2024 CVEs), with just 2 exploited in the wild and only 217 of 37,966 findings marked fixed—while duplicates (1,654) now outnumber fixes nearly 8-to-1. Anthropic's new OSS Scanner shifts triage burden to maintainers, and early results from curl show a 55.9% false positive rate on published reports, contradicting Anthropic's claimed 94.2% true positive rate.
HN Discussion:
  • ↓Personal experience shows Anthropic's reports are high-quality with no false positives
  • ↓Public CVE data is unrepresentative because serious bugs are found in private codebases
  • ↓Article's analysis is flawed because it only looks at public/disclosed subset of findings
  • ↓Low exploitation rate reflects successful preemptive patching, not fake vulnerabilities
  • ↑AI-generated reports overwhelm maintainers with mostly unimportant bugs