Lots of "in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research" mentions, no mentions of other labs. I'd assume Apple already had access to whatever the most powerful model is at the various US-based labs, but perhaps not?
tombot•19m ago
Apple isn’t friends with OpenAI anymore
AJRF•32m ago
Weird thing to see at number 3 on HN - is there some subtle context I am missing here?
Are we wink winking that it's a lot of fixes?
croemer•21m ago
I think that's it?
DStiego•20m ago
Relevant context might be for example that there are 4 mentions each of Claude by Anthropic and XGPT by ThreatBook, both based on LLMs.
AI attribution might be one reason people are particularly curious.
grahamlee•3m ago
And it's not actually that much information "about the security content". For example: "Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data. Description: An access issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions." This references CVE-2026-43819, which doesn't have any more information. Compare this with the nearly decade-old https://support.apple.com/en-gb/103680, and you see much more specific information about problems and their remedies (except in situations where Apple's action was to update a vendor component).
nizbit•25m ago
Collision counts are absurd. CVE-2026-43739 has roughly twenty credited researchers; CVE-2026-43816 has nearly as many. And ai attribution getting credit.
croemer•20m ago
One CVE even lists the same person twice!
CVE-2026-64691: Ruslan Dautov, Ruslan Dautov
proactivesvcs•10m ago
One of them lists an anonymous person!
CVE-2026-43744: Mathis Mansière, an anonymous researcher
nkrisc•4m ago
It reads as if "an anonymous researcher" is describing Mathis Mansière, which is quite humorous.
embedding-shape•33m ago
tombot•19m ago