The U.S. government on Friday ordered Anthropic to immediately suspend foreign access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5, its two most advanced artificial intelligence models, citing national security concerns tied to a reported method of bypassing the models’ safety restrictions. 

The directive, issued late Friday afternoon by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick in a letter to Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei, placed the two models under export controls that prohibit use by foreign nationals, whether inside or outside the United States. 

Because of the scope of the restrictions, which includes foreign-born Anthropic employees, the company announced Friday evening that it disabled the models to ensure compliance. Access to the company’s other AI models was not affected. 

Fable 5 and Mythos 5 had been released earlier this week, with Anthropic describing them as the most capable systems it had ever deployed. Mythos was available to members of Project Glasswing, which allowed selected cybersecurity companies to use the model to identify and address security flaws.

It’s unclear how the Commerce Department action affects Project Glasswing. Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment.

The Commerce Department‘s letter did not detail the specific national security concern. In its blog post Friday night, the company said its understanding is that the government became aware of a technique for “jailbreaking” Fable 5, a term for methods that circumvent a model’s built-in safety guardrails. According to Anthropic, the government provided only verbal evidence of what it described as a “narrow, non-universal jailbreak,” which essentially involved prompting the model to read a specific codebase and identify software flaws. 

Anthropic disputed the severity of the finding. The company said it reviewed a report it believes formed the basis of the government’s directive and found that the capabilities demonstrated were already available in other publicly accessible models, including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5. The company said those same capabilities are used routinely by cybersecurity professionals for defensive purposes. 

Katie Moussouris, chief executive of the cybersecurity firm Luta Security, posted on BlueSky Saturday that the issue stems from “Defense Oriented Prompting,” a security-first method of engineering AI system instructions that treats natural language as code.

Other reports claimed that Amazon was responsible for flagging the security issues in the model. The company did not respond to CyberScoop’s request for comment. 

Anthropic acknowledged in its statement that perfect jailbreak resistance is not achievable for any model provider, and said it had designed Fable 5 around a “defense in depth” strategy, combining narrow jailbreak resistance with active monitoring. The company said no testers had found a universal jailbreak capable of broadly bypassing the model’s safeguards. 

“We disagree that the finding of a narrow potential jailbreak should be cause for recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people,” Anthropic wrote. “If this standard was applied across the industry, we believe it would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier model providers.”

Friday’s directive is the latest episode in a prolonged dispute between Anthropic and the Trump administration. In February, President Donald Trump moved to bar Anthropic’s products from federal agencies after the company sought stronger restrictions on how the Pentagon used its technology.

Despite that, as Anthropic released Mythos under Project Glasswing, the National Security Agency was given Mythos 5 to conduct offensive cyber operations. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to bolster cyber defenses and establish a voluntary mechanism for the government to gain early access to powerful AI models before deployment. 

The administration’s stated rationale for Friday’s action drew widespread skepticism from researchers and analysts. Dean Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, called the move “baffling.” Chris McGuire, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said targeted export controls on model access could be a legitimate policy tool, but called the across-the-board restriction “highly questionable” and the deemed export provisions — which restrict foreign nationals inside the U.S. — “just absurd.” 

The broader implications for the AI industry remain uncertain. Aaron Levie, chief executive of Box, described the directive as “a big turning point for AI regulation,” arguing that the government’s willingness to deem specific models too powerful for certain uses establishes a precedent with potentially far-reaching consequences.

Other tech leaders in the government supported the action. 

“We fully support @POTUS and @SecWar in prioritizing national security and the security of our warfighters, DIB partners, critical infrastructure, international partners and allies,” DOD CIO Kirsten Davies wrote in a social post on X. “Some things are simply more important than revenue cycles, clickbait, and pre-IPO valuation. America First. Always.”

Anthropic said it believes the situation stems from a misunderstanding and is working to restore access as soon as possible.

The post Anthropic disables new models after government calls them a national security concern appeared first on CyberScoop.

A Department of Commerce inspector general report released Thursday found that the National Institute of Standards and Technology has mismanaged a critical cybersecurity vulnerability database through poor planning, inefficient operations, duplicate federal programs, and failure to communicate with users.

The National Vulnerability Database, maintained by NIST since 2005, collects information about computer security flaws and adds details like severity ratings and affected products. This information helps cybersecurity professionals across government and the private sector decide which security problems to fix first. In February 2024, the database’s enrichment contract lapsed, creating a backlog of unprocessed security flaws that has only grown worse.

The report identified the lack of strategic planning as a core problem. NIST leaders admitted they had no long-term plan for clearing the backlog, even as it grew from about 13,000 unprocessed security flaws in June 2024 to over 27,000 by the end of 2025.

NIST publicly promised in May 2024 that it would clear the backlog by September 2024, setting a goal of processing 6,200 security flaws per month, but the agency had never processed more than 5,000 per month in the past.

The report found major inefficiencies in how NIST enriches the information that is attached to the vulnerabilities. 

Analysts spend about 80% of their time on two tasks: calculating severity scores and identifying which products are affected. The inspector general’s office tested NIST’s severity scores and found they matched independent evaluators only 12% of the time. Also, nearly 80% of vulnerability submissions already include these scores from the companies that are responsible for the software. This means NIST is doing work that is often unnecessary and inconsistent. The inspector general proposed cutting back on severity score calculation work over the next two years, estimating that NIST would save $800,000 that it could redirect to other program areas.

Another efficiency problem highlighted is the program’s manual process for identifying affected products. Creating these standardized product identifiers takes a lot of time and keeps analysts from clearing the backlog. NIST is developing tools to make this faster, but it remains a major slowdown.

The report also found major duplication between two federal security programs. When the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency launched its own Vulnrichment program in May 2024, there was no coordination between the agencies, leading to NIST analysts sometimes repeating work that CISA analysts had already completed. Additionally, the two agencies even hired the same contractor for portions of the same work. The inspector general found at least 21,000 cases of duplicated work between May 2024 and December 2025, wasting approximately $200,000 in the process.  

Communication failures have made the problems worse. In April 2024, over 50 cybersecurity professionals sent an open letter to Congress complaining that NIST was not being transparent about the database’s problems. Neither NIST nor the Department of Commerce answered the letter.

Vulnerability database programs managed by the federal government have been a point of contention for the cybersecurity community over the past two years. Earlier this year, NIST announced that it has narrowed its priorities for the NVD, focusing only on vulnerabilities in CISA’s KEV catalog, software used by the federal government, and critical software identified under Executive Order 14028.

A similar program that serves as a catalog of known security flaws, the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) list, has had similar issues over the past few years. That program, run by CISA, narrowly escaped a sudden demise when a last-minute, 11-month contract extension averted a shutdown in April 2025. Since then, several competing databases from European nonprofits and other private entities have been stood up in order to better coordinate how vulnerabilities are tracked, disclosed, and ultimately patched.

The inspector general recommended that NIST create a long-term plan for the database, set up a plan to clear the backlog with specific goals, cut back on unnecessary severity score work, make it easier for outside companies to help identify affected products, immediately start working with CISA to stop duplicating work, and develop a plan to communicate better with users.

NIST agreed with all six recommendations and said it is working on them. The agency must submit a plan showing how it will address these problems by late July.

You can read the full report here. 

The post Federal audit reveals NIST’s NVD is plagued by poor planning and duplication appeared first on CyberScoop.

The U.S. government is reportedly preparing to ban the sale of wireless routers and other networking gear from TP-Link Systems, a tech company that currently enjoys an estimated 50% market share among home users and small businesses. Experts say while the proposed ban may have more to do with TP-Link’s ties to China than any specific technical threats, much of the rest of the industry serving this market also sources hardware from China and ships products that are insecure fresh out of the box.

The Washington Post recently reported that more than a half-dozen federal departments and agencies were backing a proposed ban on future sales of TP-Link devices in the United States. The story said U.S. Department of Commerce officials concluded TP-Link Systems products pose a risk because the U.S.-based company’s products handle sensitive American data and because the officials believe it remains subject to jurisdiction or influence by the Chinese government.

TP-Link Systems denies that, saying that it fully split from the Chinese TP-Link Technologies over the past three years, and that its critics have vastly overstated the company’s market share (TP-Link puts it at around 30 percent). TP-Link says it has headquarters in California, with a branch in Singapore, and that it manufactures in Vietnam. The company says it researches, designs, develops and manufactures everything except its chipsets in-house.

TP-Link Systems told The Post it has sole ownership of some engineering, design and manufacturing capabilities in China that were once part of China-based TP-Link Technologies, and that it operates them without Chinese government supervision.

“TP-Link vigorously disputes any allegation that its products present national security risks to the United States,” Ricca Silverio, a spokeswoman for TP-Link Systems, said in a statement. “TP-Link is a U.S. company committed to supplying high-quality and secure products to the U.S. market and beyond.”

Cost is a big reason TP-Link devices are so prevalent in the consumer and small business market: As this February 2025 story from Wired observed regarding the proposed ban, TP-Link has long had a reputation for flooding the market with devices that are considerably cheaper than comparable models from other vendors. That price point (and consistently excellent performance ratings) has made TP-Link a favorite among Internet service providers (ISPs) that provide routers to their customers.

In August 2024, the chairman and the ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party called for an investigation into TP-Link devices, which they said were found on U.S. military bases and for sale at exchanges that sell them to members of the military and their families.

“TP-Link’s unusual degree of vulnerabilities and required compliance with PRC law are in and of themselves disconcerting,” the House lawmakers warned in a letter (PDF) to the director of the Commerce Department. “When combined with the PRC government’s common use of SOHO [small office/home office] routers like TP-Link to perpetrate extensive cyberattacks in the United States, it becomes significantly alarming.”

The letter cited a May 2023 blog post by Check Point Research about a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group dubbed “Camaro Dragon” that used a malicious firmware implant for some TP-Link routers to carry out a sequence of targeted cyberattacks against European foreign affairs entities. Check Point said while it only found the malicious firmware on TP-Link devices, “the firmware-agnostic nature of the implanted components indicates that a wide range of devices and vendors may be at risk.”

In a report published in October 2024, Microsoft said it was tracking a network of compromised TP-Link small office and home office routers that has been abused by multiple distinct Chinese state-sponsored hacking groups since 2021. Microsoft found the hacker groups were leveraging the compromised TP-Link systems to conduct “password spraying” attacks against Microsoft accounts. Password spraying involves rapidly attempting to access a large number of accounts (usernames/email addresses) with a relatively small number of commonly used passwords.

TP-Link rightly points out that most of its competitors likewise source components from China. The company also correctly notes that advanced persistent threat (APT) groups from China and other nations have leveraged vulnerabilities in products from their competitors, such as Cisco and Netgear.

But that may be cold comfort for TP-Link customers who are now wondering if it’s smart to continue using these products, or whether it makes sense to buy more costly networking gear that might only be marginally less vulnerable to compromise.

Almost without exception, the hardware and software that ships with most consumer-grade routers includes a number of default settings that need to be changed before the devices can be safely connected to the Internet. For example, bring a new router online without changing the default username and password and chances are it will only take a few minutes before it is probed and possibly compromised by some type of Internet-of-Things botnet. Also, it is incredibly common for the firmware in a brand new router to be dangerously out of date by the time it is purchased and unboxed.

Until quite recently, the idea that router manufacturers should make it easier for their customers to use these products safely was something of an anathema to this industry. Consumers were largely left to figure that out on their own, with predictably disastrous results.

But over the past few years, many manufacturers of popular consumer routers have begun forcing users to perform basic hygiene — such as changing the default password and updating the internal firmware — before the devices can be used as a router. For example, most brands of “mesh” wireless routers — like Amazon’s Eero, Netgear’s Orbi series, or Asus’s ZenWifi — require online registration that automates these critical steps going forward (or at least through their stated support lifecycle).

For better or worse, less expensive, traditional consumer routers like those from Belkin and Linksys also now automate this setup by heavily steering customers toward installing a mobile app to complete the installation (this often comes as a shock to people more accustomed to manually configuring a router). Still, these products tend to put the onus on users to check for and install available updates periodically. Also, they’re often powered by underwhelming or else bloated firmware, and a dearth of configurable options.

Of course, not everyone wants to fiddle with mobile apps or is comfortable with registering their router so that it can be managed or monitored remotely in the cloud. For those hands-on folks — and for power users seeking more advanced router features like VPNs, ad blockers and network monitoring — the best advice is to check if your router’s stock firmware can be replaced with open-source alternatives, such as OpenWrt or DD-WRT.

These open-source firmware options are compatible with a wide range of devices, and they generally offer more features and configurability. Open-source firmware can even help extend the life of routers years after the vendor stops supporting the underlying hardware, but it still requires users to manually check for and install any available updates.

Happily, TP-Link users spooked by the proposed ban may have an alternative to outright junking these devices, as many TP-Link routers also support open-source firmware options like OpenWRT. While this approach may not eliminate any potential hardware-specific security flaws, it could serve as an effective hedge against more common vendor-specific vulnerabilities, such as undocumented user accounts, hard-coded credentials, and weaknesses that allow attackers to bypass authentication.

Regardless of the brand, if your router is more than four or five years old it may be worth upgrading for performance reasons alone — particularly if your home or office is primarily accessing the Internet through WiFi.

NB: The Post’s story notes that a substantial portion of TP-Link routers and those of its competitors are purchased or leased through ISPs. In these cases, the devices are typically managed and updated remotely by your ISP, and equipped with custom profiles responsible for authenticating your device to the ISP’s network. If this describes your setup, please do not attempt to modify or replace these devices without first consulting with your Internet provider.