Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label Anthropic AI. Show all posts

Researchers Find Security Gap in Anthropic Skill Scanners




Security researchers have uncovered a gap in the way Anthropic Skill scanning tools inspect third-party AI packages, allowing malicious code hidden inside test files to execute on developer systems even after scanners marked the Skills as safe.

The issue centers on Anthropic Skills, reusable packages designed for AI coding assistants such as Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf. These packages often include instructions, scripts, and configuration files that help AI agents perform development tasks inside IDE environments.

Researchers from Gecko Security found that existing Skill scanners focus primarily on files tied directly to agent behavior, particularly SKILL.md, while ignoring bundled test files that can still run locally through standard developer tooling.

In the demonstrated attack chain, a Skill passed all scanner checks because its visible instruction files contained no prompt injection attempts, suspicious shell commands, or malicious instructions. However, the repository also included a hidden .test.ts file stored elsewhere in the directory structure. Although the file was outside the agent execution layer, it still executed through the project’s testing framework with full access to local resources.

According to researcher Jeevan Jutla, the problem begins when developers install a Skill using the npx skills add command. The installer copies nearly the entire repository into the project’s .agents/skills/ directory. Only a few items, including .git, metadata.json, and files prefixed with underscores, are excluded during installation.

Once placed inside the repository, testing frameworks such as Jest and Vitest automatically discover matching test files through recursive glob patterns. Both frameworks reportedly enable the dot:true option, allowing them to search inside hidden directories including .agents/. Mocha follows similar recursive discovery behavior in many default configurations.

A malicious Skill can therefore include a file such as reviewer.test.ts containing a beforeAll function that silently executes before visible tests begin. Researchers said these payloads can access environment variables, .env files, SSH keys, AWS credentials, deployment tokens, and other sensitive information commonly available inside local developer environments and CI pipelines. The data can then be transmitted to external servers without triggering obvious warnings during test execution.

The researchers stressed that the AI agent itself is never involved in the compromise. Instead, the malicious behavior occurs through trusted developer tooling already integrated into the software workflow. Existing scanners inspect the files the AI agent can interpret, but not the files executed separately by testing infrastructure.

The technique resembles older software supply-chain attacks involving malicious npm postinstall scripts and poisoned pytest plugins. However, Gecko Security noted that the Anthropic Skill ecosystem creates an additional propagation problem because installed Skills are often committed into shared repositories so teams can reuse them collaboratively.

GitHub’s default .gitignore templates do not automatically exclude .agents/ directories. Once a malicious test file enters the repository, every teammate cloning the project and every CI pipeline running automated tests may execute the payload across branches, forks, and deployment workflows.

The findings arrived shortly after multiple large-scale security audits examining the broader Anthropic Skills ecosystem. A January academic study named SkillScan analyzed 31,132 Skills collected from two major marketplaces and found that 26.1% contained at least one vulnerability spanning 14 separate patterns. Data exfiltration appeared in 13.3% of examined Skills, while privilege escalation appeared in 11.8%. Researchers also determined that Skills bundling executable scripts were 2.12 times more likely to contain vulnerabilities than instruction-only packages.

Several weeks later, Snyk published its ToxicSkills audit covering 3,984 Skills from ClawHub and skills.sh. The company reported that 13.4% of scanned Skills contained at least one critical-level security issue. Automated analysis combined with human review identified 76 confirmed malicious payloads, while eight malicious Skills reportedly remained publicly accessible on ClawHub when the findings were released.

In April, Cisco introduced an AI Agent Security Scanner integrated into IDE platforms including VS Code, Cursor, and Windsurf. The scanner can detect prompt injection attempts, suspicious shell execution patterns, and data exfiltration behaviors within Skill definitions and agent-referenced scripts. However, Gecko Security said bundled test files remain outside the scanner’s documented detection surface because the tool was designed around agent interaction layers rather than developer execution layers.

Researchers noted that other products, including Snyk Agent Scan and VirusTotal Code Insight, face similar structural limitations. These tools inspect what the agent is instructed to execute but may overlook code paths triggered separately through local development frameworks.

Elia Zaitsev described the broader issue as a distinction between interpreting intent and monitoring actual execution behavior. In this case, the malicious code did not depend on prompt manipulation or AI instructions. It operated as ordinary TypeScript executed through legitimate test runners with full local permissions.

Zaitsev also warned that enterprise AI agents increasingly operate with privileged access to OAuth tokens, API keys, and centralized data sources. If those credentials are accessible through environment variables during automated testing, malicious test payloads can reach sensitive infrastructure without requiring direct agent compromise.

Mike Riemer added that threat actors frequently reverse engineer security patches within 72 hours of release, while many organizations take far longer to deploy fixes. In the case of the Anthropic Skill test-file issue, researchers warned that the exposure window becomes more difficult to manage because the malicious files may execute immediately after installation without triggering scanner alerts.

Security researchers are urging development teams to block test discovery inside .agents/ directories and inspect Skill repositories for files such as *.test.*, *.spec.*, conftest.py, __tests__/, and suspicious configuration scripts before merging code.

The report also recommends pinning Skill installations to verified commit hashes rather than installing the latest repository version. Researchers said this reduces the risk of attackers submitting clean repositories for scanner approval before later inserting malicious files. The approach aligns with guidance published in the OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 project.

Organizations that already store Skills inside repositories are advised to audit existing .agents/ directories immediately, rotate exposed credentials if suspicious files are discovered, inspect CI logs for unexplained outbound network traffic, and review repository history to identify when potentially malicious files entered development pipelines.

The researchers additionally called on security vendors to provide greater transparency regarding which directories, execution surfaces, and file categories their scanners actually inspect. They argued that security teams evaluating Anthropic Skill scanners should verify whether products analyze bundled test files, build scripts, and CI configurations rather than focusing exclusively on prompt injection and agent instruction analysis.

Cybersecurity Industry Split Over Impact of Anthropic’s Mythos AI

 





Advanced artificial intelligence systems are rapidly reshaping the cybersecurity industry, but experts remain sharply divided over whether the technology represents a manageable evolution in security research or the beginning of a large-scale vulnerability crisis.

The debate escalated after Anthropic introduced Claude Mythos Preview, an experimental version of its language model that the company says demonstrates unusually strong performance in identifying software vulnerabilities and handling advanced cybersecurity tasks. Concerned about the possible risks of releasing such capabilities broadly, Anthropic restricted access to a limited initiative known as Glasswing, allowing only a select group of organizations to test the system while the security community prepares for the implications.

Since the announcement, discussions across the cybersecurity sector have centered not only on the model’s technical abilities, but also on whether restricting access to it is realistic at all. Reports surfaced this week suggesting unauthorized individuals may already have accessed the Mythos preview, raising concerns that attempts to tightly control the technology may prove ineffective once similar capabilities become reproducible elsewhere.

The industry’s reaction has largely fallen into three competing schools of thought.

One group believes AI-driven vulnerability discovery could overwhelm existing security infrastructure. Supporters of this view warn that highly capable models may dramatically increase the speed at which attackers uncover exploitable weaknesses, potentially leading to widespread cyber incidents before defenders can respond effectively. Analysts aligned with this perspective argue that the cybersecurity ecosystem is already struggling to keep pace with current levels of vulnerability reporting.

A second group has taken a more operational approach, focusing on how organizations can defend themselves if AI-assisted exploit discovery becomes commonplace. This position has been reflected in work published through the Cloud Security Alliance, where hundreds of chief information security officers collaborated on guidance discussing defensive strategies. However, even within this camp, some security professionals have criticized Anthropic’s rollout process, arguing that patch management and vulnerability remediation are far more complex than the company appears to acknowledge.

A third camp remains skeptical of the broader panic surrounding Mythos. Researchers associated with AISLE argued that the model’s capabilities are not entirely unique because similar vulnerability discovery results can already be reproduced using publicly accessible open-weight AI models. In one cited example, researchers reportedly recreated a FreeBSD exploit demonstrated during the Mythos announcement using multiple open models, including systems inexpensive enough to operate at minimal cost. The finding suggests that moderately skilled attackers may already possess access to comparable capabilities independent of Anthropic’s platform.

This debate arrives as the cybersecurity industry is already experiencing a dramatic increase in vulnerability disclosures. The National Institute of Standards and Technology recently adjusted how it processes entries for the National Vulnerability Database after reporting a 263 percent increase in submissions between 2020 and 2025, including a sharp rise within the past year alone. The agency stated that it would prioritize only the most critical Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures entries for enrichment, highlighting how existing human review systems are struggling to scale alongside the growing volume of reported flaws.

Some experts believe artificial intelligence is already contributing to that acceleration, even before systems such as Mythos become widely available.

At the same time, defenders argue that existing security architectures still provide meaningful protection. Anthropic’s own findings reportedly acknowledged that while Mythos could identify vulnerabilities, it was unable to remotely exploit many of them because layered security controls prevented deeper compromise. This concept, commonly referred to as “defense in depth,” relies on multiple overlapping safeguards designed to stop attackers even if one weakness is discovered.

Despite disagreements over the severity of the threat, there is broad consensus that AI-assisted vulnerability discovery will continue advancing. The larger disagreement centers on how the software industry should adapt.

Some researchers argue that attempting to restrict access to advanced models through programs like Glasswing may ultimately fail because comparable capabilities are increasingly emerging in open-source ecosystems. Others believe the long-term answer may resemble principles already established in modern cryptography.

The discussion frequently references the work of 19th-century cryptographer Auguste Kerckhoffs, who argued that secure systems should remain safe even if attackers understand how they operate, except for protected keys or credentials. Over time, cybersecurity researchers have increasingly adopted a similar philosophy in software security, where openly scrutinized systems often become more resilient because flaws are exposed and corrected publicly.

Supporters of this approach believe AI could eventually force the software industry toward more rigorously tested open-source infrastructure. Under such a future, software components would face continuous AI-driven scrutiny before gaining widespread trust. However, experts also caution that this transition would be difficult because many companies still depend on proprietary code to protect intellectual property and maintain competitive advantages.

Another striking concern involves economics. Much of the modern internet depends heavily on open-source software, yet relatively few organizations financially contribute to securing and auditing the projects they rely upon. Although AI models may simplify vulnerability discovery, the computational resources required to run these systems remain expensive. Analysts warn that access to large-scale vulnerability analysis may increasingly depend on who can afford the computing power necessary to operate advanced models.

Some researchers fear this imbalance could create repeating cycles of major cyberattacks followed by emergency patching efforts before the industry temporarily stabilizes again. Recent supply chain attacks affecting widely used software tools have reinforced concerns that large-scale exploitation campaigns may become more frequent as AI-assisted discovery improves.

The sharp turn of events could also redefine the cybersecurity market itself. Companies specializing in vulnerability discovery may face mounting pressure as AI automates portions of their work. By contrast, vendors focused on remediation and layered defensive protections may see increased demand as organizations attempt to strengthen prevention measures and respond more rapidly to emerging threats.

For users and organizations heavily dependent on open-source software, the transition period may prove particularly difficult. However, some analysts remain cautiously optimistic that continuous scrutiny from increasingly advanced AI systems could eventually produce stronger and more resilient software ecosystems over the long term.

Claude Desktop Silently Alters Browser Settings, Even on Uninstalled Browsers

 

Claude Desktop, Anthropic’s standalone AI app for macOS, has come under fire for quietly altering browser‑level settings on users’ machines—even when they have never installed or used certain browsers. Security and privacy researchers have found that the application drops browser‑configuration files across system‑wide directories, effectively pre‑authorizing future browser‑extension links between Claude and Chromium‑based browsers such as Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and others.

Modus operandi 

Upon installation, Claude Desktop generates a Native Messaging manifest and helper binary that register Claude as a trusted “browser host” for several specific Chrome extension IDs. This manifest is placed inside browser‑host folders for multiple Chromium‑based browsers, including some a user may never have installed, meaning a future browser install could immediately grant Claude broad access to page content, form data, and session activity. Anthropic frames this as part of its “agentic” features that let the app automate tasks and interact with the web, but the lack of an explicit opt‑in notification has raised red flags. 

The biggest concern is that these configuration files persist beyond the scope of browsers a user actually runs. Even if a person never uses Chrome or a given Chromium browser, the manifest can already be waiting in the system’s browser‑host directories, pre‑staging a bridge that activates once a corresponding browser and Claude extension are installed. Because the desktop app rewrites these files on every launch, deleting them manually does not permanently remove the hooks unless Claude Desktop itself is uninstalled. 

Privacy and legal reactions 

Privacy experts and commentators have likened this behavior to “spyware‑like” activity, arguing that silently creating browser‑level hooks without clear consent violates the spirit, if not the letter, of privacy regulations such as the EU ePrivacy Directive. Alexander Hanff, a prominent privacy consultant, has explicitly labeled Claude Desktop’s behavior “spyware” and questioned how much of this browser integration is actually documented and disclosed to end users. Critics stress that such integrations should be opt‑in and transparent, rather than buried in vague terms‑of‑service language most users never read. 

For macOS users who have installed Claude Desktop, experts recommend reviewing whether they actually need the browser‑integration features and, if not, uninstalling the app entirely to remove lingering manifest files and host binaries. Some guides suggest manually cleaning native‑messaging‑host folders for various Chromium browsers and then restarting the browser after removal, although this is only effective if the desktop app is also gone. Until Anthropic adds clearer, upfront consent prompts and the option to disable or remove these hooks, users concerned about privacy should treat Claude Desktop’s browser integration as a potential risk and handle it accordingly.

Bank of America Bets Big on Risky Anthropic AI

 

Bank of America is aggressively expanding its use of Anthropic's advanced AI technology, even as U.S. regulators issue stark cybersecurity warnings. The bank's commitment highlights a broader trend where nearly 70% of financial institutions integrate AI into operations, prioritizing innovation over potential risks. This move comes amid global concerns about Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview model, which has detected thousands of high-severity vulnerabilities in major operating systems and browsers. 

In early April 2026, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell urgently met with CEOs from top U.S. banks, including Bank of America, to flag risks from Mythos. Officials warned that deploying the model could expose customer personal data to cyber threats, prompting Anthropic to limit access to a select group of tech and banking experts. World leaders echoed these fears: Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey called AI a "very serious challenge," while ECB President Christine Lagarde supported restrictions on the technology. 

Anthropic itself has cautioned about the dangers, stating that rapid AI progress could spread powerful vulnerability-detection capabilities to unsafe actors, with severe fallout for economies and national security. Despite this, banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of America are testing Mythos to bolster their own defenses. Canadian regulators and European counterparts have also raised alarms, underscoring the technology's global implications. 

Bank of America leads in AI adoption, with over 90% of its 200,000+ employees using the tools daily and a client-facing AI assistant logging three billion interactions in 2025 alone. Backed by a $13.5 billion tech budget—including $4 billion for AI initiatives—the bank focuses on end-to-end process transformation to boost revenue, client experience, and efficiency. Recent rollouts include an AI tool for financial advisors to identify prospects and summarize meetings. 

Bank of America's CTO Hari Gopalkrishnan emphasized balancing scale with governance at the Semafor World Economy 2026 summit, noting, "If you overdo it, you stall innovation. If you underdo it, you introduce a lot of risk." The strategy shifts from small proofs-of-concept to large-scale applications, aiming for measurable ROI while navigating regulatory scrutiny. As AI reshapes banking, Bank of America's bold push tests the fine line between opportunity and peril.

Anthropic's Mythos: AI-Powered Vulnerability Discovery Forces Cybersecurity Reckoning

 

Anthropic’s Mythos is less a single “hacker AI” than a signal that cybersecurity is entering a new phase. The real reckoning is not that one model can break everything at once, but that software weakness will be found faster, cheaper, and at greater scale than defenders are used to. Anthropic’s own testing says Mythos can identify and chain serious vulnerabilities across major operating systems and browsers, which is why the company withheld public release and limited access to select organizations for defense work.

That shift matters because security teams have long relied on human pace. Vulnerability research, exploit development, patch validation, and incident response usually move slower than attackers would like; Mythos compresses that timeline. Anthropic says the model can uncover subtle, long-standing flaws, including issues that survived years of automated testing and human review. That does not mean every discovered flaw becomes an immediate catastrophe, but it does mean the window between “bug found” and “weaponized” could shrink dramatically.

Threat analysts believe that AI’s biggest cybersecurity impact may come from existing tools, not only from frontier models like Mythos. Even before Mythos, attackers and defenders were already using AI agents to generate code, search for weaknesses, and automate parts of exploitation and remediation. So the danger is not a sudden cliff where the world changes overnight; it is a steady acceleration that makes old security assumptions look outdated. In that sense, Mythos is a spotlight, not the whole show. 

A second layer of concern is organizational. Anthropic is giving Mythos to more than 40 companies and several security-focused groups so they can test their own systems and harden critical software. That defensive access may help, but it also reveals an uncomfortable reality: the same capabilities that strengthen security can also lower the barrier for misuse if they spread beyond controlled settings. This creates pressure on companies to treat AI as part of the threat model rather than as a productivity add-on. 

Threat analysts ultimately argues for a change in mindset. Security can no longer be an afterthought or a compliance layer added at the end of development. If AI can find and chain vulnerabilities at machine speed, then “secure by design” has to become the default, with better code practices, stronger testing, faster patching, and tighter controls around high-risk AI systems. Mythos may not trigger the exact cybersecurity crisis many people imagined, but it does force a more serious one: software defense must evolve as quickly as software attack.

Wall Street Banks Test Anthropic Mythos AI as Regulators Warn of Rising Cybersecurity Threats

 

Now showing up in high-security finance circles: early tests of cutting-edge AI aimed at boosting cyber resilience, driven by rising regulator unease over smart-tech dangers. Leading the charge - an emerging system called Mythos, developed by Anthropic, notable not just for spotting code flaws but also for actively probing them under controlled conditions. 

Hidden flaws in financial networks now draw attention through Mythos, offering banks an early look ahead of potential breaches. Rather than waiting, some begin using artificial intelligence to mimic live hacking attempts across vast operations. What was once passive observation shifts toward active testing - driven by machines that learn attacker behavior. Instead of just alarms after intrusion, systems predict paths criminals might follow. Tools evolve beyond fixed rules into adaptive models shaped by constant simulation. Security transforms quietly - not with fanfare - but through repeated digital trials beneath the surface. 

What's pushing these tests forward? Part of it comes from alerts issued by American regulatory bodies, highlighting rising risks tied to artificial intelligence in cyber threats. As AI systems grow sharper, officials warn they might empower attackers to run breaches automatically, uncover system weaknesses faster, then strike vital operations - banks included - with greater precision. Though subtle, the shift marks a turning point in how digital dangers evolve. 

One reason Mythos stands out is its ability to analyze enormous amounts of code quickly. Because it detects hidden bugs others miss, security teams gain deeper insight into weak spots. What makes the model unusual is how it links separate issues to map multi-step exploits. Although some worry such power could be misapplied, financial institutions find value in testing systems against lifelike threats. Most cyber specialists point out the banking world faces extra risk because everything links together, holding valuable information. 

A small flaw might spread widely, disrupting transactions, markets, sometimes personal records. Tools powered by artificial intelligence - Mythos, for example - might detect weaknesses sooner than traditional methods. Meanwhile, regulatory bodies urge stricter supervision along with more defined guidelines governing AI applications in finance. What worries them extends beyond outside dangers - to include internal weaknesses that might emerge if AI tools lack proper governance inside organizations. 

While safety is a priority, so too is preventing system failures caused by weak oversight structures. Restricting entry to Mythos, Anthropic allows just certain groups to test the system under tight conditions. While some push fast progress, others slow down - this move leans toward care over speed. Responsibility shapes how strong tools spread, not just what they can do. 

Though Wall Street banks assess artificial intelligence for cyber protection, one fact stands out - threats shift faster than ever. Those who blend AI into security efforts might stay ahead; however, success depends on steady monitoring, strong protective layers, and constant updates when new dangers appear.

Anthropic AI Cyberattack Capabilities Raise Alarm Over Vulnerability Exploitation Risks

 

Now emerging: artificial intelligence reshapes cybersecurity faster than expected, yet evidence from Anthropic shows it might fuel digital threats more intensely than ever before. Recently disclosed results indicate their high-level AI does not just detect flaws in code - it proceeds on its own to take advantage of them. This ability signals a turning point, subtly altering what attacks may look like ahead. A different kind of risk takes shape when machines act without waiting. What worries experts comes down to recent shifts in how attacks unfold. 

One key moment arrived when Anthropic uncovered a complex spying effort. In that case, hackers - likely backed by governments - didn’t just plan with artificial intelligence; they let it carry out actions during the breach itself. That shift matters because it shows machine-driven systems now doing tasks once handled only by people inside digital invasions. Surprisingly, Anthropic revealed what its newest test model, Claude Mythos Preview, can do. The firm says it found countless serious flaws in common operating systems and software - flaws that stayed hidden for long stretches of time. Not just spotting issues, the system linked several weaknesses at once, building working attack methods, something usually done by expert humans. 

What stands out is how little oversight was needed during these operations. What stands out is how this combination - spotting weaknesses and acting on them - marks a notable shift. Not just incremental change, but something sharper: specialists like Mantas Mazeika point to AI-powered threats moving into uncharted territory, with automated systems ramping up attack frequency and reach. Another angle emerges through Allie Mellen's observation - the gap between detecting a flaw and weaponizing it shrinks fast under AI pressure, cutting response windows for companies down to almost nothing. Among the issues highlighted by Anthropic were lingering flaws in OpenBSD and FFmpeg - examples surfaced through the model’s analysis - alongside intricate sequences of exploitation targeting Linux servers. 

With such discoveries, questions grow about whether current defenses can match accelerating threats empowered by artificial intelligence. Now, Anthropic is holding back public access entirely. Access goes only to a select group of tech firms through a special program meant to spot weaknesses early. The move comes as others in tech worry just as much about misuse. Safety outweighs speed when the stakes involve advanced systems. Still, experts suggest such progress brings both danger and potential. Though risky, new tools might help uncover flaws early - shielding networks ahead of breaches. 

Yet success depends on collaboration: firms, officials, and digital defenders must reshape how they handle code fixes and protection strategies. Without shared initiative, gains could falter under old habits. Now shaping the digital frontier, advancing AI shifts how threats emerge and respond. With speed on their side, those aiming to breach systems find new openings just as quickly as protectors build stronger shields. Staying ahead means defense must grow not just faster, but smarter - matching each leap taken by adversaries before gaps widen.

Anthropic Claude Code Leak Sparks Frenzy Among Chinese Developers

 

A fresh wave of interest emerged worldwide after Anthropic’s code surfaced online, drawing sharp focus from tech builders across China. This exposure came through a misstep - shipping a tool meant for coding tasks with hidden layers exposed, revealing structural choices usually kept private. Details once locked inside now show how decisions shape performance behind the scenes.  

Even after fixing the breach fast, consequences moved faster. Around the globe, coders started studying the files, yet reaction surged most sharply in China - official reach of Anthropic's systems missing there entirely. Using encrypted tunnels online, builders hurried copies of the shared source down onto machines, racing ahead of any shutdown moves. Though patched swiftly, effects rippled outward without pause. 

Suddenly, chatter about the event exploded across China’s social networks, as engineers began unpacking Claude Code’s architecture in granular posts. Though unofficial, the exposed material revealed inner workings like memory management, coordination modules, and task-driven processes - elements shaping how automated programming tools operate outside lab settings. 

Though the leak left model weights untouched - those being the core asset in closed AI frameworks - specialists emphasize the worth found in what emerged. Revealing how raw language models evolve into working tools, it uncovers choices usually hidden behind corporate walls. What spilled out shows pathways others might follow, giving insight once guarded closely. Engineering trade-offs now sit in plain sight, altering who gets to learn them.  
Some experts believe access to these details might speed up progress at competing artificial intelligence firms. 
According to one engineer in Beijing, the exposed documents were like gold - offering real insight into how advanced tools are built. Teams operating under tight constraints suddenly found themselves seeing high-level system designs they normally would never encounter. When Anthropic reacted, the exposed package was quickly pulled down, with removal notices sent to sites such as GitHub. 

Yet before those steps took effect, duplicates had spread widely, stored now in numerous code archives. Complete control became nearly impossible at that stage. Questions have emerged regarding how AI firms manage internal safeguards along with information flow. Emphasis grows on worldwide interest in sophisticated artificial intelligence systems - especially areas facing restricted availability because of political or legal barriers. 

The growing attention highlights how hard it is for businesses to protect private data, especially when working in fast-moving artificial intelligence fields where pressure never lets up.

US Military Reportedly Used Anthropic’s Claude AI in Iran Strikes Hours After Trump Ordered Ban

 

The United States military reportedly relied on Claude, the artificial intelligence model developed by Anthropic, during its strikes on Iran—even though former President Donald Trump had ordered federal agencies to stop using the company’s technology just hours earlier.

Reports from The Wall Street Journal and Axios indicate that Claude was used during the large-scale joint US-Israel bombing campaign against Iran that began on Saturday. The episode highlights how difficult it can be for the military to quickly remove advanced AI systems once they are deeply integrated into operational frameworks.

According to the Journal, the AI tools supported military intelligence analysis, assisted in identifying potential targets, and were also used to simulate battlefield scenarios ahead of operations.

The day before the strikes began, Trump instructed all federal agencies to immediately discontinue using Anthropic’s AI tools. In a post on Truth Social, he criticized the company, calling it a "Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about".

Tensions between the US government and Anthropic had already been escalating. The conflict intensified after the US military reportedly used Claude during a January mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Anthropic raised concerns over that operation, noting that its usage policies prohibit the application of its AI systems for violent purposes, weapons development, or surveillance.

Relations continued to deteriorate in the months that followed. In a lengthy post on X, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth accused the company of "arrogance and betrayal", stating that "America's warfighters will never be held hostage by the ideological whims of Big Tech".

Hegseth also called for complete and unrestricted access to Anthropic’s AI models for any lawful military use.

Despite the political dispute, officials acknowledged that removing Claude from military systems would not be immediate. Because the technology has become widely embedded across operations, the Pentagon plans a transition period. Hegseth said Anthropic would continue providing services "for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service".

Meanwhile, OpenAI has moved quickly to fill the gap created by the rift. CEO Sam Altman announced that the company had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy its AI tools—including ChatGPT—within the military’s classified networks.