speckxOpus 4.6 uncovers 500 zero-day flaws in open-source code
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/05/anthropic-claude-opus-46-software-hunting
Daniel Stenberg has been vocal the last few months on Mastodon about being overwhelmed by false security issues submitted to the curl project.
So much so that he had to eventually close the bug bounty program.
https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2026/01/26/the-end-of-the-curl-b...
The end of the curl bug-bounty
tldr: an attempt to reduce the terror reporting. There is no longer a curl bug-bounty program. It officially stops on January 31, 2026. After having had a few half-baked previous takes, in April 2019 we kicked off the first real curl bug-bounty with the help of Hackerone, and while it stumbled a bit at first … Continue reading The end of the curl bug-bounty →
We're discussing a project led by actual vulnerability researchers, not random people in Indonesia hoping to score $50 by cajoling maintainers about atyle nits.
Vulnerability researches with a vested interest in making LLMs valuable. The difference isn't meaningful
The first three authors, who are asterisked for "equal contribution", appear to work for Anthropic. That would imply an interest in making Anthropic's LLM products valuable.
What is the confusion here?
The notion that a vulnerability researcher employed by one of the highly-valued companies in the hemisphere, publishing in the open literature with their name signed to it, is on a par with a teenager in a developing nation running script-kid tools hoping for bounty payoffs.
You don't see how thats even directionally similar?
I guess I'll spell it out. One is a guy with an abundance of technology, that he doesn't know how to use, that he knows can make him money and fame, if only he can convince you that his lies are truth. The other is a bangladeshi teenager.
To preemptively clarify, I'm not saying anything about these particular researchers.
Having established that, are you saying that you can't even conceptualize a conflict of interest potentially clouding someone's judgement any more if the amount of money and the person's perceived status and skill level all get increased?
Disagreeing about the significance of the conflict of interest is one thing, but claiming not to understand how it could make sense is a drastically stronger claim.
> in Indonesia
That's uncalled for.. there's actual security researches in Indonesia and other countries you could use to exemplify this