Hacker News Reader

Since AISLE reported 29 issues but only 6 warranted a CVE, and all the found CVEs were "low" severity, this makes me wonder if AISLE simply is tuned for a higher false positive rate than the anthropic and openai tools (which may have found the same 6 issues and decided not to report them)

View on HN

i don't think this is correct. if you look at this article by the curl founder daniel stenberg (https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2026/05/11/mythos-finds-a-curl-v...), he talks about how he previously ran Mythos on curl and that it found 5 issues: 1 turned out to be a low severity CVE, 3 were false positives, and 1 just a bug. So a) Mythos detects low severity CVEs too, and b) it is fairly noisy

As far as I understand it, the other efforts have not reported most of their findings to upstream developers, focusing on critical findings only.

This is understandable because upstream interactions at scale are difficult.

In the case of big projects like curl the interaction seems a bit more complete. E.g. There are some other blog posts about how the engagements and reviews worked which go decently beyond a pre-filtered dump of high severity CVE claims appearing out of the blue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com