I think the most obvious chicken little sign has been that we've had no catastrophic exploits in the past year due these findings.

Sure LLMs have helped reduce the attack surface and we patch things faster too, but I was really expected a few more Supermarket-level bangers.

There's an anecdote about curl, but I'm not sure if there's enough in here to draw conclusions from. 20% of vulnerabilities have been made public, and many of those are marked as "withdrawn" or "duplicates". However, it's unclear whether the remaining 80% have not been made public because they're not fixed or real. In other words, this is analysis of survivors (public); not much can be said about those still under embargo.

> Of Anthropic’s 37,966 reported findings, only 7,349 (19.4%) have been made public and just 217 have been marked fixed.

So the article is making a sweeping statement based on the 19.4% of publicly disclosed CVEs?

That statistic suggests the opposite. I'm sure government is aware of many back doors they keep secret and prefer them to remain secret.

Very interesting that the conclusion of the article is so tightly aligned with the VulnCheck's business model! It's almost as if this is just a thinly veiled advertisement...

> The CVEs are a sliver of this year's total, almost none are being exploited, fixes have stalled while duplicates and withdrawals pile up, and the triage burden is shifting onto the open source maintainers Glasswing promised to help. The receipts keep coming in. They still don't reconcile.

> VulnCheck is helping organizations not just to solve the vulnerability prioritization challenge - we’re working to help equip any product manager, CSIRT/PSIRT or SecOps team and Threat Hunting team to get faster and more accurate with infinite efficiency using VulnCheck solutions.

It is bad if this points to a general pattern of AI being better at finding than fixing vulnerabilities. The larger that ratio, the harder to secure all the things. The current stat from this experiment is 37,966 to 217. Lots of false positives, but not enough to change the big picture. I hope they didn't apply equivalent tokens to both sides, or AI may be better at demolition than construction.