22OCT

Tom's Hardware challenges Mythos zero-day claims

2 min read

16:40UTC

A technical review found Anthropic's marketing relied on 198 manual reviews to support claims of thousands of severe vulnerabilities.

← Back to Stalled power line cuts A$140m from NEXTDC guidance Jump to analysis ↓

IndustryDeveloping

Key takeaway

Only 198 manual reviews support Anthropic's claim of thousands of zero-day discoveries.

Tom's Hardware published a critical review of Anthropic's Mythos claims on 9 April, noting that the "thousands of zero-days" assertion rested on only 198 manual reviews⁠¹. Many of the flagged vulnerabilities were in outdated software no longer in active use. The gap between Anthropic's marketing language and the verified sample is wide enough to warrant caution.

The Bessent-Powell emergency meeting at Treasury headquarters proceeded regardless of this scrutiny. Challenger data confirmed AI-attributed cuts crossed 107,094 the same month, suggesting federal regulators assessed the systemic risk of AI broadly, beyond Mythos's specific claims. Whether Mythos found hundreds or thousands of exploitable flaws, the CyberGym benchmark score of 83.1% versus 66.6% for its predecessor represents a measurable capability jump that the twelve Glasswing partners will deploy in production environments.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

When Anthropic announced that Claude Mythos had found 'thousands' of serious security flaws in software, it was a dramatic claim. Tom's Hardware, a technology publication, looked at how Anthropic had actually counted those flaws. The answer was: 198 human reviewers manually checked the model's outputs. Many of the flaws it identified were in old software that organisations had already stopped using. The gap between 'thousands of vulnerabilities' and 198 verified reviews is significant. The US Treasury and Federal Reserve held their emergency meeting with bank CEOs regardless of this critique, which suggests the regulators assessed the risk from the model's overall capability trajectory, not just the specific zero-day count.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: The 2016 controversy over DeepMind's AlphaGo claims, in which Google's marketing described the system as defeating the world champion 'under official match conditions' when several conditions differed from tournament rules. Independent verification eventually confirmed the underlying capability while correcting specific claim framing. The Mythos methodology question follows the same pattern: contested marketing language around a genuine capability advance.

Counter-parallel: IBM's 1997 Deep Blue versus Kasparov match produced verified, independently adjudicated results that settled the capability claim definitively. Cybersecurity benchmarks lack equivalent independent adjudication, making the gap between Anthropic's 198-review sample and its 'thousands' headline durable in ways that chess results were not.

Consensus view: Trail of Bits co-founder Dan Guido and Veracode's Chris Wysopal assess the 198-review gap as a credibility problem for Anthropic's marketing rather than a refutation of the underlying capability: the CyberGym benchmark improvement from 66.6% to 83.1% is independently verifiable, and that gap is operationally significant regardless of zero-day count methodology.

Counter-view: Recorded Future's intelligence analysts note that threat actors routinely inflate capability claims to generate deterrence value, and that AI vendors have structural incentives to do the same. Overstated AI security capabilities may cause organisations to misallocate defensive resources toward theoretical AI attack vectors while under-investing in conventional vulnerability management.

Key tension: Whether the verified CyberGym benchmark gain represents a genuine operational security threat or a marketing projection requiring independent validation before driving regulatory and corporate resource allocation.

Sources:Tom's Hardware

Mentions:Google →US Treasury →CyberGym →Federal Reserve →Anthropic →Claude Mythos Preview →Tom's Hardware →

First Reported In

Update #5 · The model they won't release

Tom's Hardware· 10 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

Tom's Hardware challenges Mythos zero-day claims

Independent scrutiny of Mythos's capability claims introduces uncertainty about the model's actual security impact, even as regulators acted on the headline numbers.

Led to

AISI confirms Mythos 20-hour attack chain

AISI partly vindicates Tom's Hardware's critique of single-task superiority claims while confirming a distinct attack-chaining capability the Hardware review did not assess.

Occurred 15 Apr 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Mohsen Rezaei

The senior Iranian security official and former IRGC commander told Press TV that US-linked technology infrastructure in the region could become a target if war resumes. He named the UAE and valued the assets at more than US$2 trillion, without a breakdown.

Mykhailo Shelemba

Datagroup's chief executive says the Kyiv data centre hit on the night of 18 to 19 October is beyond repair. Services continue from backup sites, and no staff were hurt.

Kristen Umstattd

The Loudoun supervisor voted against fast-tracking Amazon's rezoning of the Ashburn campus. She said there were no figures yet on homes, school or road costs.

Akishima residents' litigation group

The group formed on 18 October and plans to sue Nihon GLP by year-end to stop eight data-centre buildings. Its lawyers will argue rights to life, health, clean water and a natural environment after mediation failed in August.

Óscar López

Spain's Digital Transformation minister said on 22 October he could not confirm when the data-centre decree will be approved. He added that Google has always committed to investing in Spain.

Google

Google said it would comply with LVV's order to stop preparatory works at Muhos and Kajaani until environmental assessments finish. A spokesperson conceded the company had fallen short.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.