The National Security Agency has lost access to a powerful A.I. model developed by Anthropic amid the Trump administration\u2019s brawl with the start-up, U.S. officials said, depriving the intelligence agency of a tool that has impressed and alarmed its analysts with how good it is at finding software weaknesses.<\/p>\n
This month the Trump administration imposed export controls on Anthropic, citing national security concerns. That action forced Anthropic to pull back the release of its most advanced models, known as Mythos 5 and Fable 5.<\/p>\n
The N.S.A.\u2019s cybersecurity analysts had been testing versions of Anthropic\u2019s tools when the latest models were unplugged.<\/p>\n
The controlled tests proved impressive even within the halls of the N.S.A., a secretive fortress outside Washington that specializes in developing digital espionage techniques against foreign adversaries and protecting U.S. networks from cyberattacks.<\/p>\n
The power of Anthropic\u2019s tools, and their importance to the N.S.A., were highlighted in a congressional hearing this month that underscored the administration\u2019s increasing reliance on the most advanced A.I. systems for cybersecurity even as it battles a leading U.S. developer.<\/p>\n
During the session, Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said that the N.S.A. chief, Gen. Joshua Rudd, had informed him that Mythos \u201cbroke into almost all of our classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.\u201d The comments attracted considerable attention after The Economist cited them in a report.<\/p>\n
But Mr. Warner\u2019s statement \u2014 about highly technical issues \u2014 was oversimplified, the officials said, and set off rampant speculation on social media that the latest A.I. offerings were even more earth-shattering for cybersecurity than realized. Some concluded that sophisticated A.I. models were now able to quickly compromise the classified networks that should be among the most secure on the planet.<\/p>\n
In reality, the tests involved \u201cred teams\u201d of N.S.A. analysts who were using Mythos in a highly tailored environment that would be extremely unlikely for an adversary to replicate, officials said. The red teams began their tests within classified N.S.A. systems designed to be accessible only from certain computers and completely cut off from the broader internet.<\/p>\n
The tests found that Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity flaws within that classified network quickly, but it did not actually break into those systems, the officials said.<\/p>\n
Red-teaming is a common practice in the field of cybersecurity to stress-test computer systems in order to identify and fix vulnerabilities. Technology companies big and small, as well as government agencies, routinely engage internal and external red teams to improve their digital defenses.<\/p>\n
Still, even though the N.S.A. did not experience the doomsday scenario some had feared, analysts at the spy agency were stunned by how capable Mythos appeared to be in controlled test settings, which exceeded already lofty expectations.<\/p>\n
On Monday, cybersecurity agencies from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand \u2014 an alliance known as the Five Eyes \u2014 issued an unusual public statement<\/a> warning that artificial intelligence was \u201crapidly transforming cyberrisk.\u201d<\/p>\n The statement called on businesses to urgently invest in adopting A.I. to protect their networks before it was too late.<\/p>\n \u201cFrontier A.I. models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cybercapabilities,\u201d the alliance said. It added, in a turn of phrase echoing Mr. Warner\u2019s statement: \u201cThe timeline is not years, it is months.\u201d<\/p>\n Anthropic first came into major conflict with the Trump administration this year over a $200 million Defense Department contract for A.I. use in classified systems. In a feud that became extraordinarily public, the two sides disagreed over the parameters for how A.I. technology should be used in war.<\/p>\n Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided in February to label Anthropic a \u201csupply chain risk,\u201d<\/a> declaring the company a danger to national security. It was the first time the label had been used against an American company. Anthropic has sued the government over the designation.<\/p>\n