88
Anthropic now offers a free vulnerability-finding service for open-source software
(www.engadget.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
88 points (88.6% liked)
Technology
88756 readers
3538 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When I saw the headline, I was wondering about this specifically. This may make this service not super useful.
My experience with AI security reviews is that they're fantastic at finding faults, but they always find a list of things to complain about. If there are no real/serious faults they'll start finding things that kind of have the same shape as a security issue, but really aren't if you dig into them. I've regularly had an LLM generate a list of 10-15 issues ranging in severity from "nits" to "critical" where none of them were actual issues.
Periodic reviews seem like they could get annoying really quickly, becoming more of a maintenance burden than a help.
Same experience for me. At work, I always review the output because a lot of times it finds something that can be noteable but not relevant to the scope of what is being reviewed. Even with guardrails like instructions to not go beyond the stated scope, a human absolutely still needs to read and check the findings at the end.
Yeah, there is some fatigue to be expected if you run this thing on the regular.
But the library ecosystem is changing constantly, and that might mean that while it doesn't find a real issue at one point that there won't be one some time in the future. So i would say: Scan it semi-regulary for issues and review what was found, but don't go overboard. Somewhat similar to getting an MRT every year instead of once a decade.
Yeah. I did use an open weight model LLM to scan an app that I use and it came up with a critical severity issue and I checked on it first to see if I could reproduce the problem before ever submitting it to the developer as a problem.
Turns out it was actually a legitimate security problem that has now been fixed.