u/aakela

I am looking for an AiSDR solution that offers an outcome-based solution - for example, the number of qualified meetings with the target ICP.

Suggestions please.

In the last couple of weeks, I have heard from many CISOs and security professionals about their concerns about defending against adversaries equipped with Mythos.

Anthropic Claude Mythos has found thousands of vulnerabilities in major operating systems and browsers, including chained exploits in the Linux kernel and remote code execution (RCE) in one of the most hardened operating systems (OpenBSD). 

One of the key advances in Claude Mythos is the ability to find unknown exploits (or zero days). The model's advanced reasoning capabilities highlight its ability to find novel exploits in both open- and closed-source software. 

By definition, a zero-day exploit does not have an associated patch available when it is discovered. As a result, patching the system is not a practical option when the defender faces attacks that exploit zero-day vulnerabilities. There would be no patch available to apply. 

The urgency of the advances highlighted in the Mythos publications has triggered a series of emergency responses. SANS and the Cloud Security Alliance(CSA) published an emergency advisory on Mythos, designed as a briefing for CISOs. This advisory outlines a series of steps for security teams to prepare their programs for advances in foundation models. The advisory is available at:  https://labs.cloudsecurityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/mythosready.pdf. 
 
The advisory calls for deception as a necessary control to combat advances in vulnerability exploitation stemming from attacker actions involving Mythos (or equivalent) models.

As attackers leverage Mythos to find and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities with no associated patch, defenders need security controls that can detect and deflect attacks, regardless of the specific exploit techniques involved.
 
Deception is unique in its ability to detect and deflect these threats without depending on a priori knowledge of the exploit. 
 
By deploying decoys that form a shield around the real assets, defenders gain early warning of incoming exploits and, more importantly, deflect them away from the actual assets.

In theory, defenders can deploy deceptions across asset types to combat Mythos equipped attackers. However, practical considerations require a set of criteria for defenders to gain the maximum benefit from a deception rollout, given the time-sensitive nature of the exploit risk.

Defenders can prioritize the mission-critical assets that pose the greatest risk to business impact. Another consideration is prioritizing an approach for legacy or unpatched assets. 

By prioritizing key assets (identity architecture, mission-critical business applications, production databases, operational technology assets) and legacy assets (unpatched workstations and servers), defenders can optimize their defensive coverage against a Mythos-equipped adversary.