Mozilla uses Anthropic's Mythos to uncover 271 bugs in Firefox 150

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,918   +58
Staff
What just happened? Mozilla's latest browser release doubles as a live-fire test of how far AI-assisted security has come, and how quickly it's reshaping software development. With Firefox 150, Mozilla says it has fixed 271 vulnerabilities identified not by fuzzers or human red-teamers, but by Anthropic's Mythos Preview model analyzing unreleased Firefox source code.

The result, in the view of Firefox CTO Bobby Holley, marks a decisive shift in the long-running asymmetry between attackers and defenders. "Defenders finally have a chance to win, decisively," he wrote in a blog post.

Holley says Mythos Preview demonstrated the kind of global, semantic reasoning over a large, complex codebase that, until recently, only elite human analysts could perform. By contrast, when Mozilla pointed Anthropic's earlier Opus 4.6 model at Firefox 148, the AI flagged just 22 "security-sensitive" bugs.

The new model, he argues, is now competitive with top human talent. "Computers were completely incapable of doing this a few months ago, and now they excel at it," Holley writes. "We have many years of experience picking apart the work of the world's best security researchers, and Mythos Preview is every bit as capable."

The core claim isn't that Mythos finds qualitatively new kinds of flaws that humans can't see. Holley notes that the vulnerabilities it uncovered in Firefox 150 could, in principle, also be discovered through intensive fuzzing or by an "elite security researcher" methodically reasoning through the code. The difference is cost and throughput.

Instead of concentrating months of costly human effort to find a single bug, Mythos can sweep large portions of the codebase and produce a high-volume list of issues that engineers can triage and patch.

In Mozilla's telling, that shift changes the economics of software assurance. Holley argues that once it becomes inexpensive for defenders to mine their own code for exploitable patterns, the balance tilts away from attackers – even if the same AI capabilities eventually become available to offensive teams.

"Our belief is that the tools have changed things dramatically, because now we have automated techniques that can cover, as far as we can tell, the full space of vulnerability-inducing bugs," he told Wired.

Mozilla's approach to shipping Firefox has already begun to evolve in response to these tools. Bobby Holley now frames AI-driven code review as an intensive, mandatory phase that software must pass through, as models like Mythos can surface large numbers of previously hidden bugs deep within mature codebases.

He also warns that this adjustment is resource-intensive. In conversations with executives at major tech companies, some have said they expect to reassign thousands of engineers for months to push their products through this new AI-assisted hardening process.

The implications are sharpest for open source, where much of the internet's critical infrastructure is maintained by small teams or even individual volunteers. Firefox's code is public, making it an obvious target for any capable vulnerability-hunting model. Holley cautions that many maintainers lack both the access and the capacity to take advantage of these AI tools – or to act on the flood of issues they uncover.

Mozilla CTO Raffi Krikorian has raised similar concerns about who benefits from AI-accelerated security. In a recent New York Times opinion piece, he argues that Mythos could deepen existing structural imbalances in software. The underlying economics of infrastructure, he contends, haven't changed: critical open-source components that underpin the modern tech stack are still largely maintained by unpaid volunteers, while large companies profit from that work without meaningfully funding its upkeep.

With powerful new AI security capabilities coming online, he warns, well-resourced organizations may be the first to gain access, harden their systems, and reduce their exposure – while underfunded projects and smaller players remain equally or even more vulnerable.

Holley says the Firefox team is already sharing what it has learned through both formal collaborations and more ad hoc relationships with other open source projects. At the same time, he stresses that no amount of automation can resolve the deeper structural issues shaping the open source ecosystem. In his view, AI can scale vulnerability discovery, but the real constraints remain human: time, money, attention, and coordination. Addressing them will require a concerted industry-wide effort rather than a purely technical fix.

Permalink to story:

 
I'm sure it's faster than humans, but is it really cheaper if it requires billion dollar machines that use as much electricity and water as entire cities? It might be cheaper now, but let's see what the prices are like when the banks and investors start asking for their money back.
 
Is this a bug or a feature? When ever I visit site "InfoWars" I have to hit the FireFox Reload Page button in order to open ANY page link. I know if is a Firefox thing because I don't have to do this if I use Chrome.
This has not changed in v 150.
 
I'm sure it's faster than humans, but is it really cheaper if it requires billion dollar machines that use as much electricity and water as entire cities? It might be cheaper now, but let's see what the prices are like when the banks and investors start asking for their money back.
I’d assume that the prices will be cheaper as the years go by and computers get more powerful… considering your phone is VASTLY more powerful than anything NASA had trying to land on the moon, imagine what processing power we’ll have in a few more decades…
 
I'm sure it's faster than humans, but is it really cheaper if it requires billion dollar machines that use as much electricity and water as entire cities? It might be cheaper now, but let's see what the prices are like when the banks and investors start asking for their money back.
You are mistaking code generation by AI and code analysis and verification. On that aspect, it is clear that it is magnitude cheaper and faster for a similar end results.

This whole AI negationism on PCMRs forums is laughable at best... all this because they can`t afford PC parts anymore so they are denying the capabilities... sad...
 
You are mistaking code generation by AI and code analysis and verification. On that aspect, it is clear that it is magnitude cheaper and faster for a similar end results.

This whole AI negationism on PCMRs forums is laughable at best... all this because they can`t afford PC parts anymore so they are denying the capabilities... sad...
The problem is that the cost per token is about 10% of what it should be and the costs are still massive. The GPUs are only part of the cost. The cost per kilowatt isn't going to go down and they are still using billions of dollars of water every year. We also need to think about how many places are considering implementing things where increased prices for electricity and water have to be absorbed by the data center or they get their permits revoked. We aren't done seeing the cost increases of data center operation and let's not forget that the banks and investors still have to get their share. Even Sam Altman has said that they are just going to ask the AI how to make money whenever they get a good enough AI product. AI absolutely can generate revenue right now, it's just that the cost per token means it isn't profitable and that's all while all this stuff is being HEAVILY being subsidized by everyone. Handing out billion dollar tax credits like there candy and these companies still can't make money with AI. Also, hardware progress is basically dead. Were already close to where we can count transitor size in atoms and each new node is going to start costing exponentially more so the cost savings likely won't exist for die shrinks and energy savings in the future. All these problems exist and noone is even acknowledging that they do. We only need one of them to skyrocket the cost tokens
 
Last edited:
The cost per kilowatt isn't going to go down...
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Every single iteration of hardware dramatically increases the performance per watt, and software models are evolving to be more efficient as well, even given the same hardware.

and they are still using billions of dollars of water every year.
LOL, what? You're off an order or two of magnitude there. All direct-water datacenter usage in the US is about 17B gallons/year, or 0.04% of total US water consumption, or about one SIXTH of water golf courses alone in the US consume.

Even if we assume 100% of that consumption is treated water (it isn't) that still only works out to about $100M a year.
 
These sort of bug hunt numbers and discoveries become so niche though.... Like if you're an attacking panda typing mandarin on an english version of windows and have physical access, you can potentially make Firefox run into memory overflow. Oh yay, thanks Mythos, you saved us a whole bunch of time finding that.
 
271 vulnerabilities in a single release. In one browser. That has been maintained by some of the most security-conscious engineers in open source for 20 years.

So the optimistic framing is that defenders now have a structural advantage because they can harden their code cheaply. The pessimistic framing, buried in the same article, is that the same model used to find 271 Firefox bugs is commercially available and attackers don't have to tell anyone what they found. Holley's belief that defense benefits more than offense is genuinely interesting but it's still just a belief.
 
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Every single iteration of hardware dramatically increases the performance per watt, and software models are evolving to be more efficient as well, even given the same hardware.


LOL, what? You're off an order or two of magnitude there. All direct-water datacenter usage in the US is about 17B gallons/year, or 0.04% of total US water consumption, or about one SIXTH of water golf courses alone in the US consume.

Even if we assume 100% of that consumption is treated water (it isn't) that still only works out to about $100M a year.

I don’t log in here very often, or on most sites to be honest, but I do enjoy stopping by and reading through the discussions now and then. Your comments are usually some of the more interesting ones I come across, especially since you are not afraid to be a contrarian. It keeps things engaging and gives me something to think about.
Even when I don’t fully agree, I still appreciate the perspective you bring. You seem to have a solid range of knowledge, and it shows
One small thing, it would be great if you could include sources when possible. I know it might feel like spoonfeeding, but even just a direct link, not necessarily hyperlinked, would be really appreciated.
Just wanted to say I enjoy reading your posts, cheers! And yeah, this place is definitely a step up from the chaos over at Wccftech

P.S I refined this using AI, english is not my first language.
 
One small thing, it would be great if you could include sources when possible.
Thanks, and you're absolutely right. I had actually used 2020 golf course data in my first post. Updating it for for 2024 data (the latest), I found a 31% decline in usage: 1.61 million acre-feet, or 525 billion gallons.


An interesting point is that the industry attributes much of this decline (160B gallons/year saved) to new AI-based water management systems.

Regarding US datacenters, this report places 2025 potable water usage at 0.98T * 0.68 * 0.26 = 173B gallons

 
Back