×
Did Live Nation punish a venue by taking Billie Eilish away?

Did Live Nation punish a venue by taking Billie Eilish away?

John Abbamondi had orders to let the CEO of Ticketmaster down easy.

In April 2021, Abbamondi was the CEO of BSE Global, the company that ran Brooklyn arena the Barclays Center. BSE Global’s existing Ticketmaster contract would expire at the end of September, and Abbamondi and his team had evaluated proposals from SeatGeek, AXS, and Ticketmaster. The economics of Ticketmaster offer, according to Abbamondi, “was nowhere near as good as the other two.” SeatGeek’s technology was “superior” to Ticketmaster’s on balance, on top of better financial terms including an equity stake in the company, the arena decided. It clinched their decision to go with a newer, smaller player in the field.

When Abbamondi called to break the news to Michael Rapino, the Live Nation Entertainment CEO, the meeting became tense — and a recording of it came back to haunt Rapino in this month’s Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly trial. Abbamondi was one of two witnesses who took the stand Wednesday, alongside Mitch Helgerson, the chief revenue officer for the Minnesota Wild hockey team. Both men said that when they considered switching their venues’ ticketing platform from Ticketmaster, executives there threatened them with the loss of vital Live Nation-promoted concerts. It’s the behavior, the Justice Department and 40 state and district attorneys general say, of a monopolist — a charge Live Nation-Ticketmaster denies.

Abbamondi, identifying the voices on the 2021 call to a Manhattan jury Wednesday, said that “the nervous guy was me and the angry guy was Michael.” The few minutes played in court captures an exchange that went “sideways,” as Abbamondi put it, when he tried to thread a delicate needle: rejecting Ticketmaster’s services while trying to hold its parent company Live Nation to a separate contract promising to fill Barclays Center with concerts. At one point, Rapino dropped an F-bomb while discussing his frustration over a contractual dispute. He told Abbamondi he believed they were never planning to renew with Ticketmaster in the first place.

Rapino reminded Abbamondi about the new UBS Arena in Queens, which could draw more Live Nation-promoted shows away from Barclays. Though Ticketmaster theoretically operates separately from Live Nation, Abbamondi took this as a “not-so-veiled” threat — cut off the left arm, and the right arm would swing back. Abbamondi hung up feeling like he’d failed to “do my job there, which was to land the plane smoothly.”

The venue “saw a dramatic decline in Live Nation shows that were booked at the arena”

Abbamondi still signed the deal with SeatGeek, which began in October 2021. Then, he testified, the venue “saw a dramatic decline in Live Nation shows that were booked at the arena.” Artists were just beginning to fill stadiums again after the start of the covid pandemic, including Billie Eilish, who’d had to cancel shows in New York venues including Barclays in 2020. Normally, Abbamondi would have expected Live Nation to rebook her show there next time she was on tour. But when she began touring again in 2021, she booked at the new venue Rapino had warned about — the UBS Arena. When Barclays asked about it, they were told it was the “artist’s decision.” Other promoters, he said, hadn’t reduced their bookings at Barclays by nearly as much.

In 2022, mere months into the SeatGeek contract, Abbamondi was fired. Less than a year later, Barclays announced it was going back to Ticketmaster.

Ticketmaster, in the witnesses’ telling, wasn’t the best option for a ticketing vendor, but Live Nation’s power as a concert promoter forced their hand. In the case of the Minnesota Wild, which played at the then-Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Helgerson said the fear of losing Live Nation shows was a large driver behind its decision to stick with Ticketmaster — even though it found it would make $1 million a year more switching to SeatGeek.

The arena was already engaged in tight competition for concerts with the Target Center across the river in Minneapolis, a similarly-sized venue. So when the Wild kicked off negotiations over renewing its contract with Ticketmaster in 2018, the ticketing service knew how to hit them where it would hurt. When the Wild staff mentioned they were planning to consider a proposal from SeatGeek too, a Ticketmaster executive told them that Live Nation could move all of their shows to the Target Center if they switched ticketing vendors, Helgerson testified. “We took it as a credible threat,” he said. “Losing those shows would be almost catastrophic to our organization.”

“We took it as a credible threat”

To ease the risk, SeatGeek offered what it called “Live Nation retaliation insurance” — a promise to compensate the arena for concerts booked at the Target Center on dates Xcel had open. SeatGeek offered the arena a higher upfront bonus and fee share that overall would make the venue an additional $1 million a year compared to Ticketmaster’s offer. But even retaliation insurance couldn’t make up for the loss of the “vibrance of the venue” and the impact on its own employees should Live Nation pull its shows. Ticketmaster’s alleged threat created an “insurmountable challenge.” The venue signed another contract with Ticketmaster.

There were complicating factors in both these cases, which Live Nation pointed out on cross-examination. It was both risky and a lot of work to move to a new ticketing platform. Like switching any enterprise software, it would take a while for staff to get up to speed, and Abbamondi admitted that while SeatGeek’s technology gave them more options over things like how to price individual seats, it was less user-friendly. An executive whom Helgerson worked with worried that SeatGeek’s lack of an interface for concert promoters at the time would be an obstacle to getting them to bring shows to the arena. Abbamondi also said he’s personal friends with SeatGeek’s co-founder, and he testified he wasn’t fired because of the SeatGeek deal — he was given two other reasons.

SeatGeek offered what it called “Live Nation retaliation insurance”

There was also a separate legal dispute between the Barclays Center and Ticketmaster, which appeared to be at least part of the reason that the call between Abbamondi and Rapino broke down. Barclays believed their contract with Ticketmaster would expire at the end of September 2021, as originally stated. But Ticketmaster believed that because the Covid pandemic shortened the regular NBA season, a clause in the contract had been triggered to extend that contract another year. On top of that, in an earlier, unrecorded call between Abbamondi and Rapino, the Ticketmaster CEO suggested that they should be given the chance to counter any offer Barclays received. Abbamondi said he tried his best to respond in a “noncommittal” way, but the implication was that Rapino might have seen it differently.

The jury will have to decide whether the threats Abbamondi and Helgerson described were really as menacing as they believe, one of many factors that will determine whether Live Nation-Ticketmaster should face penalties — including the possibility of a breakup.

In one text exchange, Live Nation executive Patti Kim, a friend of Abbamondi’s, wrote that he should “think about the bigger relationship” with Live Nation, not just who’s writing the bigger check. She added a winky face. “That was my friend saying, ‘you know what I mean,’” Abbamondi said. This week, the jury is expected to get the chance to hear from the rival allegedly offering those bigger checks: SeatGeek CEO Jack Groetzinger.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.


Source link
#Live #Nation #punish #venue #Billie #Eilish

For some social media users, Facebook may feel like an app left behind in an online era of the past. However, for others, Facebook has reinvented itself as the modern-day Craigslist with Facebook Marketplace.

Meta seems to have taken notice and is now releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.

The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 

Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.

Meta launches Seller, a standalone app for Facebook Marketplace sellers
                                                            For some social media users, Facebook may feel like an app left behind in an online era of the past. However, for others, Facebook has reinvented itself as the modern-day Craigslist with Facebook Marketplace.Meta seems to have taken notice and is now releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 
Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.
        
            Mashable Light Speed
        
        
    

    
                    


            
            
            
            Credit: Facebook
        
    
Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.
As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers

Credit: Facebook

Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. 

Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.

In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.

As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.

Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

#Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers">Meta launches Seller, a standalone app for Facebook Marketplace sellers
                                                            For some social media users, Facebook may feel like an app left behind in an online era of the past. However, for others, Facebook has reinvented itself as the modern-day Craigslist with Facebook Marketplace.Meta seems to have taken notice and is now releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 
Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.
        
            Mashable Light Speed
        
        
    

    
                    


            
            
            
            Credit: Facebook
        
    
Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.
As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers

releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.

The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 

Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.

Meta launches Seller, a standalone app for Facebook Marketplace sellers
                                                            For some social media users, Facebook may feel like an app left behind in an online era of the past. However, for others, Facebook has reinvented itself as the modern-day Craigslist with Facebook Marketplace.Meta seems to have taken notice and is now releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 
Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.
        
            Mashable Light Speed
        
        
    

    
                    


            
            
            
            Credit: Facebook
        
    
Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.
As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers

Credit: Facebook

Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. 

Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.

In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.

As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.

Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

#Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers">Meta launches Seller, a standalone app for Facebook Marketplace sellers

For some social media users, Facebook may feel like an app left behind in an online era of the past. However, for others, Facebook has reinvented itself as the modern-day Craigslist with Facebook Marketplace.

Meta seems to have taken notice and is now releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.

The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 

Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.

Meta launches Seller, a standalone app for Facebook Marketplace sellers
                                                            For some social media users, Facebook may feel like an app left behind in an online era of the past. However, for others, Facebook has reinvented itself as the modern-day Craigslist with Facebook Marketplace.Meta seems to have taken notice and is now releasing a standalone app for the Facebook Marketplace power users who keep the platform going: It’s sellers.The new app, aptly named Seller, launched on Friday and provides Facebook Marketplace sellers with tools to list their wares and manage their current listings. 
Like Facebook Marketplace itself, the Seller app is free for users. Meta monetizes Facebook Marketplace with ads and does not take any percentage of its users’ sales. Users will be able to download the app and login with their Facebook account starting today.
        
            Mashable Light Speed
        
        
    

    
                    


            
            
            
            Credit: Facebook
        
    
Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.
As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers

Credit: Facebook

Seller provides a tool to post new listings, a dashboard to manage their existing ones, an in-app inbox to reply to prospective buyers, and analytics for all of their old listings. 

Seller also introduces a few new tools for sellers as well. According to Facebook, Seller users will be able to scan their products with their smartphone, and AI will fill-out the listing details automatically.

In an interview with the New York Times, Facebook head Tom Allison said that the app would be the Marketplace seller equivalent of a video editing tool for content creators. Allison also explained how Meta is experimenting with more standalone products for Facebook’s power users, which include Marketplace Sellers and Facebook Groups administrators.

As social media users move to competing platforms like TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram, Facebook has found new life within specific, once-niche features on the platform. In May, Facebook launched a standalone app called Forum for its Facebook Groups power users. Now, the company is doing the same for Facebook Marketplace sellers.

Meta says that one-third of young adults who use Facebook also use Marketplace. And, every month, more than 420 million items are listed on the Marketplace platform. 

#Meta #launches #Seller #standalone #app #Facebook #Marketplace #sellers
For months, AI giants have devised special vetted programs and strict guardrails to limit the use of their models by malicious hackers. But these limits are now hindering the work of legitimate network defenders, as well as that of offensive cybersecurity researchers. 

In June, the U.S. government slapped export control restrictions on Anthropic’s much-hyped AI models Mythos and Fable. The move was prompted at least in part by a report that claimed it was possible to bypass the models’ guardrails designed to prevent users from using them to build and execute malicious cyberattacks.

Regardless of whether the incident was really motivated by fears of a jailbreak, the fact is that Anthropic has repeatedly marketed Mythos as some kind of doomsday cybermachine that can only be given to carefully vetted users, and even then with strict guardrails in place. (The export controls on Fable 5 and Mythos 5 have since been lifted. Fable 5 returned to general access on July 1; Mythos 5 has been reintroduced only to vetted U.S. organizations as part of the government’s review process.)

That kind of gatekeeping isn’t unique to Mythos. Both Anthropic, with its other models, and OpenAI offer cybersecurity researchers programs they can apply to get vetted and — if approved — access models with fewer cybersecurity restrictions: OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber program and Anthropic’s Cyber Verification Program

These guardrails have been widely criticized, particularly by researchers whose job is to find unknown vulnerabilities in systems and devise ways to exploit them before criminals do.

During a recent appearance on a cybersecurity podcast, Mark Dowd, a well-known security researcher, said that, “it’s not really comfortable to me that these random large companies are making arbitrary decisions about what is safe in security and what’s not.”

Dowd has spent decades finding and selling “zero-days” — previously unknown software flaws and the exploits that take advantage of them — to Western governments, rather than reporting them to the software makers so they get patched. Governments pay a premium for vulnerabilities precisely because they stay open, which is useful for intelligence operations.

Dowd admitted his work may make him biased, but he isn’t alone. Several people who work in offensive cybersecurity — they proactively probe systems for weaknesses — described to TechCrunch how they use AI tools and deal with their guardrails. 

Chris Anley, the chief scientist at security consulting giant NCC Group, said that asking an AI model to try to exploit a bug is a key step in confirming it’s a real vulnerability worth fixing. But if a guardrail prompts the model to refuse to answer the question outright, the guardrail hurts defenders, he said.

“This is where the whole offensive versus defensive and guardrails part comes in, because ‘fix this code’ as a prompt is both an essential mechanism for defense but also a roadmap for finding critical vulnerabilities in the code base,” said Anley. “So at the same time, the same tool is both an offensive tool and a defensive tool, and the two can’t really be unpicked.”

It’s “like a hammer,” he continued. “You can’t build a house without a hammer. It’s definitely a tool but it’s also irreducibly a weapon as well.”

When he and his colleagues run into such a roadblock, they sometimes fall back on open source AI models that come with no guardrails at all.

Paolo Stagno, the chief technology officer at Crowdfense, a well-known company that develops, acquires, and sells unknown vulnerabilities to government agencies, agreed with Dowd, saying AI companies “essentially treat customers like children who need babysitting” with their vetted programs and guardrails. 

Stagno said he and his colleagues do use frontier models — but only for reverse engineering. They avoid using AI to help find vulnerabilities or build exploits, he said, because feeding that work into a cloud-based model risks leaking sensitive vulnerability data or having it absorbed into future training runs. For that step, he said, they use open source models run locally, as they do not rely on sharing data outside of the model. 

Giuseppe Cali, a security researcher who finds zero-days and develops exploits, said guardrails are not impeding his work. That’s because he doesn’t use AI for offensive work; instead, he uses it for initial reverse engineering, to understand the code he’s analyzing, and to build supporting tools. For that, he said, AI tools can speed up the process and allow him to focus on discovering vulnerabilities. 

“I still want to own the actual bug discovery and weaponization myself and that wouldn’t change if all guardrails were lifted tomorrow,” said Cali. “I am jealous of my bugs, and I like this game too much to let models play it for me.”

One researcher at a smartphone-component manufacturer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to talk to the press, said his employer isn’t part of Anthropic’s CVP program and as a result, its tools are barely useful for finding vulnerabilities because the guardrails are too strict.

“If it catches wind we’re doing anything security related, it just stops and isn’t usable,” the person said. 

Chris Thompson — chief executive of cybersecurity firm RemoteThreat and founder of Offensive AI Con, an offensive security and AI-focused event — said that in his experience using the frontier AI models, the guardrails can be inconsistent and work differently every day. That’s true even inside the looser boundaries of Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s vetted programs. 

“I think the practical impact is you spend a lot of time negotiating with the model instead of working on the core security program,” said Thompson. “Instead of analyzing a vulnerability and reasoning through the exploitability, you’re trying to find why you’re getting inconsistent results or why are models over-sanitizing the output.” 

Consequently, researchers rely on or get pushed toward Chinese open source models like GLM — freely downloadable models that can be run locally with no vetting or usage restrictions — said Thompson.

“You have these responsible researchers that are being pushed away from U.S.-governed systems to foreign-owned systems,” he said. “I think it’s more harmful than good to have these guardrails in place.”

Rather than tightening restrictions further, Thompson called for the AI frontier labs to open up their programs, provide responsible access, and hold those who abuse their tools accountable. Otherwise, he argued, defenders will lose the AI race.

“There’s this big storm coming. There’s this big wave of attacks that are going to happen at speed and scale like never before,” said Thompson. “But the same security consulting firms and legit researchers that are trying to make a difference are being stifled right now.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#guardrails #impeding #work #offensive #cybersecurity #researchers #TechCrunchcybersecurity,Zero-days">How AI guardrails are impeding the work of offensive cybersecurity researchers | TechCrunch
For months, AI giants have devised special vetted programs and strict guardrails to limit the use of their models by malicious hackers. But these limits are now hindering the work of legitimate network defenders, as well as that of offensive cybersecurity researchers. 

In June, the U.S. government slapped export control restrictions on Anthropic’s much-hyped AI models Mythos and Fable. The move was prompted at least in part by a report that claimed it was possible to bypass the models’ guardrails designed to prevent users from using them to build and execute malicious cyberattacks.







Regardless of whether the incident was really motivated by fears of a jailbreak, the fact is that Anthropic has repeatedly marketed Mythos as some kind of doomsday cybermachine that can only be given to carefully vetted users, and even then with strict guardrails in place. (The export controls on Fable 5 and Mythos 5 have since been lifted. Fable 5 returned to general access on July 1; Mythos 5 has been reintroduced only to vetted U.S. organizations as part of the government’s review process.)

That kind of gatekeeping isn’t unique to Mythos. Both Anthropic, with its other models, and OpenAI offer cybersecurity researchers programs they can apply to get vetted and — if approved — access models with fewer cybersecurity restrictions: OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber program and Anthropic’s Cyber Verification Program. 

These guardrails have been widely criticized, particularly by researchers whose job is to find unknown vulnerabilities in systems and devise ways to exploit them before criminals do.

During a recent appearance on a cybersecurity podcast, Mark Dowd, a well-known security researcher, said that, “it’s not really comfortable to me that these random large companies are making arbitrary decisions about what is safe in security and what’s not.”

Dowd has spent decades finding and selling “zero-days” — previously unknown software flaws and the exploits that take advantage of them — to Western governments, rather than reporting them to the software makers so they get patched. Governments pay a premium for vulnerabilities precisely because they stay open, which is useful for intelligence operations.


Dowd admitted his work may make him biased, but he isn’t alone. Several people who work in offensive cybersecurity — they proactively probe systems for weaknesses  — described to TechCrunch how they use AI tools and deal with their guardrails. 

Chris Anley, the chief scientist at security consulting giant NCC Group, said that asking an AI model to try to exploit a bug is a key step in confirming it’s a real vulnerability worth fixing. But if a guardrail prompts the model to refuse to answer the question outright, the guardrail hurts defenders, he said. 

“This is where the whole offensive versus defensive and guardrails part comes in, because ‘fix this code’ as a prompt is both an essential mechanism for defense but also a roadmap for finding critical vulnerabilities in the code base,” said Anley. “So at the same time, the same tool is both an offensive tool and a defensive tool, and the two can’t really be unpicked.” 







It’s “like a hammer,” he continued. “You can’t build a house without a hammer. It’s definitely a tool but it’s also irreducibly a weapon as well.”

When he and his colleagues run into such a roadblock, they sometimes fall back on open source AI models that come with no guardrails at all.

Paolo Stagno, the chief technology officer at Crowdfense, a well-known company that develops, acquires, and sells unknown vulnerabilities to government agencies, agreed with Dowd, saying AI companies “essentially treat customers like children who need babysitting” with their vetted programs and guardrails. 

Stagno said he and his colleagues do use frontier models — but only for reverse engineering. They avoid using AI to help find vulnerabilities or build exploits, he said, because feeding that work into a cloud-based model risks leaking sensitive vulnerability data or having it absorbed into future training runs. For that step, he said, they use open source models run locally, as they do not rely on sharing data outside of the model. 

Giuseppe Cali, a security researcher who finds zero-days and develops exploits, said guardrails are not impeding his work. That’s because he doesn’t use AI for offensive work; instead, he uses it for initial reverse engineering, to understand the code he’s analyzing, and to build supporting tools. For that, he said, AI tools can speed up the process and allow him to focus on discovering vulnerabilities. 

“I still want to own the actual bug discovery and weaponization myself and that wouldn’t change if all guardrails were lifted tomorrow,” said Cali. “I am jealous of my bugs, and I like this game too much to let models play it for me.”

One researcher at a smartphone-component manufacturer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to talk to the press, said his employer isn’t part of Anthropic’s CVP program and as a result, its tools are barely useful for finding vulnerabilities because the guardrails are too strict.

“If it catches wind we’re doing anything security related, it just stops and isn’t usable,” the person said. 







Chris Thompson — chief executive of cybersecurity firm RemoteThreat and founder of Offensive AI Con, an offensive security and AI-focused event — said that in his experience using the frontier AI models, the guardrails can be inconsistent and work differently every day. That’s true even inside the looser boundaries of Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s vetted programs. 

“I think the practical impact is you spend a lot of time negotiating with the model instead of working on the core security program,” said Thompson. “Instead of analyzing a vulnerability and reasoning through the exploitability, you’re trying to find why you’re getting inconsistent results or why are models over-sanitizing the output.” 

Consequently, researchers rely on or get pushed toward Chinese open source models like GLM — freely downloadable models that can be run locally with no vetting or usage restrictions — said Thompson.

“You have these responsible researchers that are being pushed away from U.S.-governed systems to foreign-owned systems,” he said. “I think it’s more harmful than good to have these guardrails in place.”

Rather than tightening restrictions further, Thompson called for the AI frontier labs to open up their programs, provide responsible access, and hold those who abuse their tools accountable. Otherwise, he argued, defenders will lose the AI race.

“There’s this big storm coming. There’s this big wave of attacks that are going to happen at speed and scale like never before,” said Thompson. “But the same security consulting firms and legit researchers that are trying to make a difference are being stifled right now.”


When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#guardrails #impeding #work #offensive #cybersecurity #researchers #TechCrunchcybersecurity,Zero-days

slapped export control restrictions on Anthropic’s much-hyped AI models Mythos and Fable. The move was prompted at least in part by a report that claimed it was possible to bypass the models’ guardrails designed to prevent users from using them to build and execute malicious cyberattacks.

Regardless of whether the incident was really motivated by fears of a jailbreak, the fact is that Anthropic has repeatedly marketed Mythos as some kind of doomsday cybermachine that can only be given to carefully vetted users, and even then with strict guardrails in place. (The export controls on Fable 5 and Mythos 5 have since been lifted. Fable 5 returned to general access on July 1; Mythos 5 has been reintroduced only to vetted U.S. organizations as part of the government’s review process.)

That kind of gatekeeping isn’t unique to Mythos. Both Anthropic, with its other models, and OpenAI offer cybersecurity researchers programs they can apply to get vetted and — if approved — access models with fewer cybersecurity restrictions: OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber program and Anthropic’s Cyber Verification Program

These guardrails have been widely criticized, particularly by researchers whose job is to find unknown vulnerabilities in systems and devise ways to exploit them before criminals do.

During a recent appearance on a cybersecurity podcast, Mark Dowd, a well-known security researcher, said that, “it’s not really comfortable to me that these random large companies are making arbitrary decisions about what is safe in security and what’s not.”

Dowd has spent decades finding and selling “zero-days” — previously unknown software flaws and the exploits that take advantage of them — to Western governments, rather than reporting them to the software makers so they get patched. Governments pay a premium for vulnerabilities precisely because they stay open, which is useful for intelligence operations.

Dowd admitted his work may make him biased, but he isn’t alone. Several people who work in offensive cybersecurity — they proactively probe systems for weaknesses — described to TechCrunch how they use AI tools and deal with their guardrails. 

Chris Anley, the chief scientist at security consulting giant NCC Group, said that asking an AI model to try to exploit a bug is a key step in confirming it’s a real vulnerability worth fixing. But if a guardrail prompts the model to refuse to answer the question outright, the guardrail hurts defenders, he said.

“This is where the whole offensive versus defensive and guardrails part comes in, because ‘fix this code’ as a prompt is both an essential mechanism for defense but also a roadmap for finding critical vulnerabilities in the code base,” said Anley. “So at the same time, the same tool is both an offensive tool and a defensive tool, and the two can’t really be unpicked.”

It’s “like a hammer,” he continued. “You can’t build a house without a hammer. It’s definitely a tool but it’s also irreducibly a weapon as well.”

When he and his colleagues run into such a roadblock, they sometimes fall back on open source AI models that come with no guardrails at all.

Paolo Stagno, the chief technology officer at Crowdfense, a well-known company that develops, acquires, and sells unknown vulnerabilities to government agencies, agreed with Dowd, saying AI companies “essentially treat customers like children who need babysitting” with their vetted programs and guardrails. 

Stagno said he and his colleagues do use frontier models — but only for reverse engineering. They avoid using AI to help find vulnerabilities or build exploits, he said, because feeding that work into a cloud-based model risks leaking sensitive vulnerability data or having it absorbed into future training runs. For that step, he said, they use open source models run locally, as they do not rely on sharing data outside of the model. 

Giuseppe Cali, a security researcher who finds zero-days and develops exploits, said guardrails are not impeding his work. That’s because he doesn’t use AI for offensive work; instead, he uses it for initial reverse engineering, to understand the code he’s analyzing, and to build supporting tools. For that, he said, AI tools can speed up the process and allow him to focus on discovering vulnerabilities. 

“I still want to own the actual bug discovery and weaponization myself and that wouldn’t change if all guardrails were lifted tomorrow,” said Cali. “I am jealous of my bugs, and I like this game too much to let models play it for me.”

One researcher at a smartphone-component manufacturer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to talk to the press, said his employer isn’t part of Anthropic’s CVP program and as a result, its tools are barely useful for finding vulnerabilities because the guardrails are too strict.

“If it catches wind we’re doing anything security related, it just stops and isn’t usable,” the person said. 

Chris Thompson — chief executive of cybersecurity firm RemoteThreat and founder of Offensive AI Con, an offensive security and AI-focused event — said that in his experience using the frontier AI models, the guardrails can be inconsistent and work differently every day. That’s true even inside the looser boundaries of Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s vetted programs. 

“I think the practical impact is you spend a lot of time negotiating with the model instead of working on the core security program,” said Thompson. “Instead of analyzing a vulnerability and reasoning through the exploitability, you’re trying to find why you’re getting inconsistent results or why are models over-sanitizing the output.” 

Consequently, researchers rely on or get pushed toward Chinese open source models like GLM — freely downloadable models that can be run locally with no vetting or usage restrictions — said Thompson.

“You have these responsible researchers that are being pushed away from U.S.-governed systems to foreign-owned systems,” he said. “I think it’s more harmful than good to have these guardrails in place.”

Rather than tightening restrictions further, Thompson called for the AI frontier labs to open up their programs, provide responsible access, and hold those who abuse their tools accountable. Otherwise, he argued, defenders will lose the AI race.

“There’s this big storm coming. There’s this big wave of attacks that are going to happen at speed and scale like never before,” said Thompson. “But the same security consulting firms and legit researchers that are trying to make a difference are being stifled right now.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#guardrails #impeding #work #offensive #cybersecurity #researchers #TechCrunchcybersecurity,Zero-days">How AI guardrails are impeding the work of offensive cybersecurity researchers | TechCrunch

For months, AI giants have devised special vetted programs and strict guardrails to limit the use of their models by malicious hackers. But these limits are now hindering the work of legitimate network defenders, as well as that of offensive cybersecurity researchers. 

In June, the U.S. government slapped export control restrictions on Anthropic’s much-hyped AI models Mythos and Fable. The move was prompted at least in part by a report that claimed it was possible to bypass the models’ guardrails designed to prevent users from using them to build and execute malicious cyberattacks.

Regardless of whether the incident was really motivated by fears of a jailbreak, the fact is that Anthropic has repeatedly marketed Mythos as some kind of doomsday cybermachine that can only be given to carefully vetted users, and even then with strict guardrails in place. (The export controls on Fable 5 and Mythos 5 have since been lifted. Fable 5 returned to general access on July 1; Mythos 5 has been reintroduced only to vetted U.S. organizations as part of the government’s review process.)

That kind of gatekeeping isn’t unique to Mythos. Both Anthropic, with its other models, and OpenAI offer cybersecurity researchers programs they can apply to get vetted and — if approved — access models with fewer cybersecurity restrictions: OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber program and Anthropic’s Cyber Verification Program

These guardrails have been widely criticized, particularly by researchers whose job is to find unknown vulnerabilities in systems and devise ways to exploit them before criminals do.

During a recent appearance on a cybersecurity podcast, Mark Dowd, a well-known security researcher, said that, “it’s not really comfortable to me that these random large companies are making arbitrary decisions about what is safe in security and what’s not.”

Dowd has spent decades finding and selling “zero-days” — previously unknown software flaws and the exploits that take advantage of them — to Western governments, rather than reporting them to the software makers so they get patched. Governments pay a premium for vulnerabilities precisely because they stay open, which is useful for intelligence operations.

Dowd admitted his work may make him biased, but he isn’t alone. Several people who work in offensive cybersecurity — they proactively probe systems for weaknesses — described to TechCrunch how they use AI tools and deal with their guardrails. 

Chris Anley, the chief scientist at security consulting giant NCC Group, said that asking an AI model to try to exploit a bug is a key step in confirming it’s a real vulnerability worth fixing. But if a guardrail prompts the model to refuse to answer the question outright, the guardrail hurts defenders, he said.

“This is where the whole offensive versus defensive and guardrails part comes in, because ‘fix this code’ as a prompt is both an essential mechanism for defense but also a roadmap for finding critical vulnerabilities in the code base,” said Anley. “So at the same time, the same tool is both an offensive tool and a defensive tool, and the two can’t really be unpicked.”

It’s “like a hammer,” he continued. “You can’t build a house without a hammer. It’s definitely a tool but it’s also irreducibly a weapon as well.”

When he and his colleagues run into such a roadblock, they sometimes fall back on open source AI models that come with no guardrails at all.

Paolo Stagno, the chief technology officer at Crowdfense, a well-known company that develops, acquires, and sells unknown vulnerabilities to government agencies, agreed with Dowd, saying AI companies “essentially treat customers like children who need babysitting” with their vetted programs and guardrails. 

Stagno said he and his colleagues do use frontier models — but only for reverse engineering. They avoid using AI to help find vulnerabilities or build exploits, he said, because feeding that work into a cloud-based model risks leaking sensitive vulnerability data or having it absorbed into future training runs. For that step, he said, they use open source models run locally, as they do not rely on sharing data outside of the model. 

Giuseppe Cali, a security researcher who finds zero-days and develops exploits, said guardrails are not impeding his work. That’s because he doesn’t use AI for offensive work; instead, he uses it for initial reverse engineering, to understand the code he’s analyzing, and to build supporting tools. For that, he said, AI tools can speed up the process and allow him to focus on discovering vulnerabilities. 

“I still want to own the actual bug discovery and weaponization myself and that wouldn’t change if all guardrails were lifted tomorrow,” said Cali. “I am jealous of my bugs, and I like this game too much to let models play it for me.”

One researcher at a smartphone-component manufacturer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he isn’t authorized to talk to the press, said his employer isn’t part of Anthropic’s CVP program and as a result, its tools are barely useful for finding vulnerabilities because the guardrails are too strict.

“If it catches wind we’re doing anything security related, it just stops and isn’t usable,” the person said. 

Chris Thompson — chief executive of cybersecurity firm RemoteThreat and founder of Offensive AI Con, an offensive security and AI-focused event — said that in his experience using the frontier AI models, the guardrails can be inconsistent and work differently every day. That’s true even inside the looser boundaries of Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s vetted programs. 

“I think the practical impact is you spend a lot of time negotiating with the model instead of working on the core security program,” said Thompson. “Instead of analyzing a vulnerability and reasoning through the exploitability, you’re trying to find why you’re getting inconsistent results or why are models over-sanitizing the output.” 

Consequently, researchers rely on or get pushed toward Chinese open source models like GLM — freely downloadable models that can be run locally with no vetting or usage restrictions — said Thompson.

“You have these responsible researchers that are being pushed away from U.S.-governed systems to foreign-owned systems,” he said. “I think it’s more harmful than good to have these guardrails in place.”

Rather than tightening restrictions further, Thompson called for the AI frontier labs to open up their programs, provide responsible access, and hold those who abuse their tools accountable. Otherwise, he argued, defenders will lose the AI race.

“There’s this big storm coming. There’s this big wave of attacks that are going to happen at speed and scale like never before,” said Thompson. “But the same security consulting firms and legit researchers that are trying to make a difference are being stifled right now.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#guardrails #impeding #work #offensive #cybersecurity #researchers #TechCrunchcybersecurity,Zero-days

Post Comment