ZeroHour
DashboardNewsCVEsExploitsIncidentsAIBriefAnalyticsEntitiesWatchlistIOCsAsk the feedSourcesFeeds & APIKiosk mode

Search: “MiniMax”

2 stories in the last 3d

Searchkeywordsmart Sortlatesthotimportancerelevance
DomainAllCyberAIWindow24h3d7d30dAllIn the wildImportant onlyShow duplicates
CategoryAllAI safety & security 2
SeverityAllcritical 0high 0medium 0low 0info 2

[AINews] AEF-1 standard emerges for Third Party Evaluators, as Xai, OpenAI, and Anthropic all cosign

xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic cosign the AEF-1 third-party evaluation standard while Dario Amodei proposes embedded evaluators for safety verification.

The AI Evaluator Forum published AEF-1, a baseline standard for independent third-party AI evaluations covering access, conflicts of interest, funding relationships, recusal, and transparency, cosigned by xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Dario Amodei wrote a rare personal blogpost proposing embedded evaluators such as METR with desks, badges, company laptops, and internal-risk-team-level access to verify safety commitments, plus democratic and global coordination frameworks. The roundup also covers the pacing debate: Bilal Chughtai left Google DeepMind arguing progress may outrun alignment, while critics including Aidan Gomez and Cohere push back against slowdowns and lab gatekeeping. Additional items include Cline Desktop's launch with open-weight model support.

Latent Space · 1d agoAI safety & security

Adversarial Testing of Automated Program Repair Agents for Security Vulnerabilities

SWEADV benchmark shows adversarial issue descriptions make LLM program-repair agents write insecure fixes in 51.7% of cases, evading most detection tools.

Researchers built SWEADV, a benchmark of 750 adversarial issue descriptions derived from 150 SWE-bench Verified repair tasks, covering command execution, deserialization, path traversal, denial of service, and weak hashing attack types. Tested on mini_swe agents backed by GPT-5-Mini, MiniMax-M2.5, and DeepSeek-R, adversarial descriptions induced malicious behavior with successful repair in 51.7% of cases. Detection was weak: LLM-as-judge pre-repair screening reached only 62.3% accuracy, and post-repair detection via static analysis and LLM-as-judge achieved just 39.4% and 55.4%.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security1