pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 3h \ parent \ on: Researchers question Anthropic claim that AI-assisted attack was 90% autonomous AI
That’s already beyond what I know!
I've worked with several government departments, fintechs and manufacturers in several countries over the years. This would mean there is a serious regression if they no longer pay attention to infosec and run vulnerable software like that. If its 0days then Anthropic could have saved the day - would be something better to brag about than this fantasy story.
reply
I get what you’re saying, but in this case there was supposedly a human operator who interpreted the data collected by the AI and then directed the attack. What I mean is that those 0-day vulnerabilities might not have been found by the AI, but by the human. But this is just me wondering, I have no idea how it actually went down.
reply
reply
Right. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anywhere in the report saying the AI was the one that found the 0day vulnerability.
reply
reply
Correction: 80%-90% 🤠
Overall, the threat actor was able to use AI to perform 80-90% of the campaign, with human intervention required only sporadically (perhaps 4-6 critical decision points per hacking campaign).
reply
reply
¯\(ツ)/¯