allnewscastallnewscast
Breaking News
Paxton’s Private Convention Assessment Collides With Trump’s Public Praise— Politics & ElectionsGillibrand and Welch Set Fall Senate Hearing Schedule For Tariff Repeal Bill— Politics & ElectionsFederal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule— Politics & Electionsnews1— Politics & ElectionsPaxton’s Private Convention Assessment Collides With Trump’s Public Praise— Politics & ElectionsGillibrand and Welch Set Fall Senate Hearing Schedule For Tariff Repeal Bill— Politics & ElectionsFederal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule— Politics & Electionsnews1— Politics & Elections
AI & Tech

AI News: Anthropic Opens Three-Tier Claude Access for Verified Cyber Teams

Nic Reeve5 min read
AI News: Anthropic Opens Three-Tier Claude Access for Verified Cyber Teams

Anthropic expanded its Cyber Verification Program on October 6, 2026, giving vetted security professionals broader access to Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Mythos 5.1 with fewer cyber-related blocking controls. The move is the latest AI news development to treat advanced models as tools for controlled defensive research as well as authorized offensive testing.

What changed in Anthropic’s cyber program?

Anthropic replaced separate access paths with a three-tier program that matches model permissions to a team’s role and the potential consequences of its work. The company said the revised structure combines its original Cyber Verification Program with Project Glasswing, an initiative focused on testing critical software.

  • Defense Access: intended for incident response, malware analysis, vulnerability research and defensive work on systems the applicant owns or maintains.
  • Red Team Access: adds authorized penetration testing and red-team exercises. Organizations, rather than individual applicants, are eligible for this level.
  • Specialized Access: reserved for a smaller group testing safety-critical systems, including power grids, flight systems and interbank transfer infrastructure.

According to Anthropic, every tier includes access to Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Sonnet 5.5, Claude Mythos 5.1 and future models, although the safeguards and verification requirements differ by tier.

Why is Anthropic reducing some safeguards?

Cybersecurity testing can resemble malicious activity when an AI system examines malware, writes exploit code or probes a network. Anthropic’s program is designed to reduce false refusals for verified professionals while retaining controls around who can use the models, what they can test and how high-risk activity is reviewed.

The company described the expanded program as a way to make advanced cyber capabilities available to qualifying security teams. Anthropic wrote, “We’re launching a new, expanded version of our Cyber Verification Program (CVP), which makes advanced cyber capabilities and reduced blocking classifiers available to qualifying security professionals.”

The distinction matters because unrestricted access could help defenders and attackers alike. Anthropic is therefore tying access to identity checks, organizational responsibility and the intended environment. The structure does not make advanced cyber assistance available to the public at large.

Who can apply for access?

Anthropic’s stated target group includes security teams, critical-infrastructure operators, open-source maintainers and researchers with a record of reporting vulnerabilities. Applicants must show that their work is authorized and that they can operate the models within the required security controls.

  • Security operations and incident-response teams can seek defensive access.
  • Organizations conducting authorized penetration tests can seek Red Team Access.
  • Teams working on safety-critical infrastructure face the narrowest eligibility rules.
  • Existing Project Glasswing members are moving into the Specialized Access tier, according to Anthropic’s program description.

Anthropic has not publicly stated how many organizations will receive each tier or how many applications it expects to approve. That leaves the program’s eventual scale unclear.

What did Project Glasswing find?

Project Glasswing provides the main evidence behind Anthropic’s decision to widen access. Reuters reported on October 6, 2026, that the initiative helped uncover more than 100,000 software vulnerabilities during 2026. The figure refers to findings associated with the project, not to the number of confirmed exploitable flaws in critical infrastructure.

The earlier effort had operated for roughly six months before Anthropic folded it into the expanded program, according to Reuters’ report. Anthropic’s own Glasswing page describes the initiative as an effort to secure critical software for the AI era.

That history also explains the new specialized tier. Testing a consumer application carries different risks from testing systems that control electricity, aircraft or financial transfers. Anthropic’s framework separates those activities instead of applying one permission level to every security researcher.

How does the new structure compare with the previous program?

The earlier version covered Claude Opus and Claude Sonnet through a single access level, according to Anthropic’s support documentation updated in October 2026. The revised framework introduces three levels and adds Claude Mythos 5.1 to the listed model lineup.

  • Previous structure: one principal access level for verified cyber work.
  • New structure: Defense, Red Team and Specialized tiers.
  • Model access: Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, Mythos 5.1 and future models are listed across the new tiers.
  • Program scope: the former CVP and Project Glasswing now sit under one framework.

The revised design gives Anthropic more room to distinguish routine defensive analysis from work that could affect public safety or financial stability. It also gives security organizations a defined route to request capabilities that ordinary users cannot access.

What risks remain for security teams?

Fewer blocking controls can improve the usefulness of a model for legitimate testing, but the same capability can produce harmful instructions if a user misrepresents an authorization. The program’s protection therefore depends on verification, monitoring and the applicant’s ability to contain testing inside approved systems.

Specialized Access carries the highest potential impact. Anthropic says reviews for work involving critical systems are currently handled in collaboration with the U.S. government, according to reporting published by AI Weekly on October 6, 2026. Anthropic has not disclosed the complete review criteria or the government agencies involved.

Model access also does not replace professional judgment. A generated exploit may be inaccurate, unsafe or unsuitable for a live environment. Security teams still need change controls, testing boundaries and human approval before applying model output to production systems.

What happens next?

Anthropic will process applications under the three-tier model and transition existing Glasswing participants into Specialized Access. The company’s announcement says new models will be added to the program in the future, but it does not provide a timetable or promise access to every applicant.

The next test will be operational. Anthropic will need to show that broader access improves vulnerability discovery without allowing unauthorized intrusion or dangerous experimentation. Independent reporting will also be needed to assess the reported findings, the number of approved teams and any security incidents linked to the program.

For defenders, the expansion creates a controlled path to use frontier models in incident response and authorized testing. For model providers, it raises a harder question: how much capability can be released safely when the work itself requires bypassing some of the restrictions designed to prevent cyber abuse?

Sources

  1. 1.anthropic.com
  2. 2.anthropic.com
  3. 3.cybersecuritynews.com
  4. 4.support.claude.com
  5. 5.cryptopolitan.com
  6. 6.ground.news
  7. 7.anthropic.com
  8. 8.aiweekly.co
  9. 9.x.com
  10. 10.streamlinefeed.co.ke
  11. 11.pasqualepillitteri.it
  12. 12.econotimes.com
  13. 13.kfgo.com
  14. 14.cdomagazine.tech
  15. 15.techmeme.com

Read more →

Related Articles

Intel’s AI Surge Sparks Fierce Valuation Clash as Some Models Flag 80%+ Upside
AI & Tech

Intel’s AI Surge Sparks Fierce Valuation Clash as Some Models Flag 80%+ Upside

Intel’s rapid push into artificial intelligence chips and foundry services has ignited a sharp debate over what the stock is really worth, with one widely followed narrative now implying a fair value near $500 per share — more than four times the recent market price. While mainstream analysts still cluster between roughly $90 and $120 per share, user-driven valuation models and some sales-based frameworks argue that the market is deeply underestimating Intel’s long‑term AI earnings power, leaving the stock potentially more than 80% below fair value. Where the 82% Undervaluation Claim Comes From The headline figure that Intel could be about 82% below fair value stems from a narrative used on retail‑focused valuation platforms, which apply aggressive growth and margin assumptions to Intel’s emerging AI businesses. In several recent notes, that framework points to a fair value around $500.93 per share , compared with a share price near the $90–$100 range in late August 2026. On that basis, Intel is framed as roughly 80–82% undervalued, with the gap driven by bullish expectations for x86 server CPUs, AI accelerators and foundry contracts over the next decade. These narratives typically assume: Strong, sustained growth in Intel’s Data Center and AI (DCAI) segment. High adoption of Intel’s advanced manufacturing nodes, such as 18A, by external foundry customers. AI‑linked revenue eventually commanding premium valuation multiples similar to leading GPU and cloud infrastructure providers. Critically, this $500+ fair value is not a consensus Wall Street target but a specific, scenario‑driven model that extrapolates current AI momentum far into the future. Intel’s Latest AI and Earnings Momentum The bullish valuation arguments have gained traction as Intel’s reported numbers show AI demand increasingly driving the business. For the second quarter of 2026, Intel reported revenue of about $16.1 billion, up 25% year over year , and adjusted earnings per share of $0.42, beating analyst expectations. The company’s Data Center and AI Group stood out, delivering approximately 59% year‑over‑year growth , with management noting that AI‑linked businesses grew more than 70% and now account for roughly 70% of total revenue. Intel also guided third‑quarter revenue to a range of $15.8 billion to $16.8 billion and gross margins in the low‑40% band, signaling confidence that AI‑related demand will remain robust despite broader concerns about chip valuations. On the strategic side, Intel highlighted signed foundry and advanced packaging agreements with major technology players, including Google, Nvidia, Tesla and Apple, alongside partnerships tied to its 18A manufacturing node and High NA EUV lithography. Foundry revenue rose by more than 30% year over year, although external customers still represent a small share of the segment, keeping the long‑term foundry thesis partly unproven. Mainstream Fair Value Estimates: 90–120 Dollar Range Traditional analyst research paints a far more moderate picture of Intel’s intrinsic value. Morningstar, which has repeatedly updated its Intel model in response to the AI boom, lifted its fair value estimate multiple times in 2026. Earlier in the year, analysts raised Intel’s fair value to $90 per share from $60, citing a “stunning” rise in server CPU demand and a growing AI infrastructure build‑out. Following stronger results and upgraded expectations, Morningstar later increased its fair value estimate to around $105 per share , and some commentary mentions fair value figures just above $100 as AI‑related assumptions were refined further. Other analyst summaries show valuation targets and fair value estimates clustering between roughly $88 and $115 per share , with some firms setting price targets as high as $200 but many maintaining Neutral or Hold ratings due to execution and capital‑intensity concerns. On several discounted cash‑flow (DCF) models, Intel’s intrinsic value is calculated in the mid‑80s to low‑90s per share range, only slightly above or below the current market price, implying the stock is close to fairly valued on conservative cash‑flow assumptions. Sales‑Based Models Still See Undervaluation Separate from the more conservative DCF work, some valuation frameworks focused on price‑to‑sales (P/S) multiples argue that Intel’s AI‑driven mix and size justify a richer multiple than the market is currently assigning. One such model derives a “fair” P/S ratio of about 15.1x for Intel, compared with an observed multiple closer to 13.1x at the time of analysis, suggesting the stock trades at a discount to what its AI exposure and margin profile would warrant. Another narrative points to a fair P/S ratio nearer 17.9x , versus a contemporaneous multiple around 7.6x. Under that lens, Intel looks significantly undervalued on sales even if cash‑flow‑based intrinsic value appears only modestly above the share price. These sales‑centric approaches underpin much of the “still cheap” messaging, emphasizing Intel’s potential rerating as AI revenue becomes a larger and more stable component of the business. Not All Analysts Buy the Undervaluation Story Despite the enthusiasm around AI, some research houses remain skeptical that current valuations can be justified. Early in 2026, one widely cited report called Intel “overpriced” and warned that the shares were trading more than 30% above a fair value estimate of $32 per share , based on cautious assumptions about profitability and competitive risks. Although that figure has since been raised substantially by the same provider, the earlier stance illustrates how sensitive Intel’s perceived fair value is to underlying assumptions about AI demand durability, manufacturing execution and capital allocation. Even after upgrading their models to reflect the AI boom, some analysts argue that Intel’s stock has already priced in a great deal of optimism and may struggle if AI infrastructure spending normalizes or if rivals capture outsized share of accelerator and server CPU markets. AI Capital Raise Adds Another Layer to the Debate The valuation controversy has been sharpened by Intel’s recent decision to raise a large amount of equity capital to fund its AI ambitions. In mid‑August, the company launched a stock offering initially sized at $15 billion and then expanded it to $20 billion after strong investor demand. The sale briefly pressured the share price but was interpreted by some market watchers as a sign of management’s confidence in the scale of Intel’s AI opportunity and its foundry road map. For bullish valuation frameworks, the capital raise is seen as necessary fuel for growth; for skeptics, it reinforces concerns about dilution and the high cost of competing at the cutting edge of semiconductor manufacturing. A Wide Valuation Range, Driven by AI Assumptions As of late August 2026, Intel’s fair value estimates span a remarkably wide range — from the $80–$120 band common among traditional analysts to user‑driven narratives north of $500 per share. The claim that Intel could be roughly 82% below fair value relies on the most optimistic of these models, which assume sustained AI‑powered growth and premium valuation multiples over many years. For investors, the gap underscores how pivotal AI is to the Intel story: the more confidence markets place in Intel’s ability to convert its early AI momentum into durable, high‑margin earnings streams, the more plausible the higher end of that valuation spectrum becomes.

Nic Reeve·
ECRI Targets Hidden AI Failures with New Patient Safety Reporting Channel
AI & Tech

ECRI Targets Hidden AI Failures with New Patient Safety Reporting Channel

Global patient safety nonprofit ECRI is widening its national problem-reporting network to explicitly capture errors, malfunctions, and near misses linked to artificial intelligence (AI) tools and AI-enabled devices used in patient care. The move aims to close a critical data gap as hospitals and health systems rapidly deploy AI for diagnosis, triage, documentation, and patient communication. A New Channel for Tracking AI-Related Harm For decades, ECRI has collected confidential reports on medical device issues and health IT problems from frontline clinicians and healthcare organizations, investigating them and sharing lessons learned back to the reporting sites and the wider industry. With the latest expansion, its Problem Reporting Network now includes a dedicated pathway for incidents where an AI-enabled tool may have contributed to an error, produced an incorrect output, or introduced new risks into care delivery. ECRI is urging healthcare providers, health systems, and clinicians across the United States to submit reports whenever they suspect an AI application played a role in a safety event—whether the error reached a patient or was caught beforehand as a near miss. Reports can cover a broad range of technologies, including diagnostic algorithms, clinical decision-support tools, radiology image analysis systems, risk prediction models, and AI-driven chatbots used in patient engagement. Underreported AI Problems in Clinical Practice The expansion reflects growing concern that AI-related safety issues are significantly underreported compared with more traditional device failures. In a recent ECRI survey of 124 quality, safety, risk, and compliance leaders, nearly one‑third said they had encountered an AI output they believed was incorrect or misleading within the past year. About 9% said an AI error had reached a patient or affected a care decision. ECRI argues that without formal reporting mechanisms, many of these incidents remain invisible to oversight bodies and technology developers. ECRI has previously warned that adverse events involving AI-enabled medical devices and applications are often missed because staff may not realize when AI is running in the background, or they may attribute problems solely to human error or workflow issues. The organization’s guidance emphasizes the need to recognize reportable AI events , identify which products incorporate AI, and conduct risk assessments specific to AI-enabled devices. Examples of AI Errors ECRI Wants Reported The expanded reporting network is designed to capture a spectrum of AI-related safety concerns, including: Incorrect or misleading outputs that influence diagnostic or treatment decisions, such as misclassification of imaging findings or inaccurate risk scores. False positives and false negatives in AI-driven diagnostic tools, even when performance metrics appear acceptable, if they contribute to missed or unnecessary care. Algorithmic bias leading to poorer performance for specific patient groups, including women and racial or ethnic minorities. Unexpected behavior or unsafe recommendations from AI chatbots or virtual assistants used in clinical or patient-facing workflows. System malfunctions or integration failures where AI components interact incorrectly with electronic health records or medical devices, causing delays, data loss, or wrong information displays. All reports submitted to ECRI are kept confidential, and the service is free to participating organizations and clinicians. ECRI triages and investigates reports, may notify manufacturers when appropriate, and incorporates findings into its safety alerts, guidance documents, and member resources. AI Risks Already Top ECRI’s Safety Agendas The expanded reporting network aligns with ECRI’s broader assessment that AI-related risks are now among the most pressing patient safety challenges. In its annual list of Top 10 Health Technology Hazards for 2026 , ECRI ranked the misuse of AI chatbots in healthcare as the number‑one hazard, warning that poorly governed or inadequately supervised chatbots can provide inaccurate or unsafe guidance to patients and clinicians. ECRI’s 2026 Top Patient Safety Concerns report similarly identified “Navigating the AI Diagnostic Dilemma” as the leading safety concern, citing a growing risk of missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses when AI tools are deployed without robust validation, governance, and clinical oversight. The organization recommends structured logging of when AI informs diagnostic decisions, maintenance of detailed audit trails, and clear processes for clinicians to override AI outputs when they conflict with clinical judgment. How the Expanded Network Fits into Broader Oversight Regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintain databases of adverse events and cleared AI-enabled medical devices, but ECRI’s reporting network offers a complementary channel focused specifically on patient safety and practical implementation issues. ECRI encourages organizations to report AI-related events not only to regulatory databases but also to its own system, where incidents can be analyzed in the context of broader patterns of health technology hazards. Reports submitted through the expanded AI pathway will feed into ECRI’s internal databases and may prompt targeted safety alerts, practice recommendations, or deeper investigations of specific products or use cases. Over time, ECRI expects that richer reporting will help quantify how often clinical AI tools produce incorrect or misleading outputs, what types of workflows are most vulnerable, and which controls are effective at preventing harm. Call to Action for Clinicians and Health Systems With AI adoption accelerating across radiology, pathology, emergency triage, scheduling, and patient messaging, ECRI’s message to healthcare organizations is direct: treat AI incidents as reportable patient safety events and submit them through established channels, including ECRI’s expanded network. The organization urges hospitals to educate frontline staff on how to spot potential AI errors, document them consistently, and escalate concerns for review. By systematically capturing AI-related problems—from subtle misclassifications to major diagnostic failures—ECRI aims to give clinicians and technology developers clearer visibility into real‑world risks, ultimately shaping safer AI deployment across the healthcare system.

Nic Reeve·
Hotshot–Litera Partnership Puts AI-Era Legal Training Inside CE Platforms
AI & Tech

Hotshot–Litera Partnership Puts AI-Era Legal Training Inside CE Platforms

Hotshot and Litera Sign Agreement to Deepen Training Collaboration Hotshot, a leading learning platform for lawyers, has entered into a new phase of collaboration with legal technology provider Litera, signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to integrate Hotshot’s course library into Litera’s CE Manager learning and compliance platform. The announcement, made on August 20, 2026 in Chicago and New York, signals a closer alignment between legal training and the rapidly expanding use of artificial intelligence in law firms. Under the MoU, Litera and Hotshot will work toward a deeper technical and commercial partnership that makes Hotshot’s practical, on‑demand courses available directly through CE Manager. The integration is scheduled to be available by the fourth quarter of 2026, pending development and rollout milestones. What the Integration Includes The initiative centers on providing law firms with a more seamless way to manage both professional development and compliance. Hotshot’s library of more than 400 courses will be accessible within CE Manager, allowing lawyers to discover and complete training without leaving the platform they already use for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) tracking and compliance. According to the companies’ announcement, firms will be able to: Assign Hotshot courses to individuals, practice groups, or firmwide audiences from within CE Manager. Track completion and eligible CLE credits in a unified dashboard, reducing manual data entry and reconciliation. Integrate the full Hotshot library into existing learning programs, combining firm‑authored content with external training resources. This builds on earlier work between the two companies around CLE credit tracking, which already allowed CLE earned through Hotshot’s short, video‑based courses to be logged in CE Manager. The new step significantly broadens the relationship, shifting from simple data integration to a more comprehensive content and workflow partnership. Context: AI Is Reshaping Talent Development in Law The collaboration comes as firms are reevaluating how they develop talent in the age of generative AI and agentic legal tools. Litera has positioned itself as a legal AI platform, embedding AI agents such as its legal assistant “Lito” into document drafting, workflow, and due diligence tools used by tens of thousands of legal professionals worldwide. By unifying training with its existing AI‑enabled products, Litera is attempting to ensure that lawyers do not just adopt new tools, but also understand the practical, ethical, and procedural changes that accompany them. For firms, the combination of an AI‑driven drafting and workflow environment with integrated, practice‑focused learning content addresses a growing concern: how to upskill lawyers quickly enough to keep pace with technology. The Hotshot–Litera tie‑up is framed as a response to this pressure, offering a way to embed continuous learning into everyday legal work. About Hotshot and Its Training Approach Hotshot is widely used across the U.S. legal market, including by more than half of the Am Law 100, as well as regional and boutique firms. Its courses are designed to be practical and concise, often delivered through short videos that walk through real‑world transactions, litigation tasks, and practice skills. Content is authored by practitioners and subject‑matter experts from major law firms, financial institutions, and professional services organizations. A key point emphasized in the collaboration is Hotshot’s philosophy of putting practical learning first , with CLE credit layered on top. Rather than treating CLE as a box‑ticking exercise, the courses aim to build skills that lawyers can immediately use, with credit as a secondary benefit. This approach aligns with the broader industry push to make compliance‑driven training more substantive and relevant to day‑to‑day practice. About Litera and Its CE Manager Platform Litera has grown into a major provider of legal technology, offering tools for drafting, transaction management, due diligence, and governance. In recent years it has increasingly focused on AI, promoting its platform as a way to unify the practice and business of law under a single, AI‑enhanced environment. CE Manager, one of Litera’s key products for professional development, is a learning management and CLE compliance platform tailored to law firms. It is used to track attorney credits across jurisdictions, manage course catalogs, and generate compliance reports for regulators and internal stakeholders. By embedding Hotshot’s content directly into CE Manager, Litera aims to turn what was primarily a compliance system into a more robust learning hub, where training assignments, credit tracking, and content discovery happen in one place. Benefits for Law Firms and Lawyers The partnership promises several practical benefits for firms that are already under pressure to modernize training while containing costs: Centralized training experience: Lawyers can access firm‑authored courses, third‑party content like Hotshot’s, and CLE tracking within a unified system, reducing the friction of switching between platforms. Improved compliance oversight: Compliance teams gain a more comprehensive view of training activity, including which courses are being completed, which credits are being earned, and where risk gaps remain. Scalable AI‑related upskilling: As generative AI tools become embedded in everyday legal workflows, the integrated platform offers a way to roll out structured training on responsible AI use, data security, and updated workflows. Flexible, on‑demand learning: Short, practical videos are easier to fit into busy schedules, and integration with CE Manager means that completing those videos can immediately translate into CLE credit where applicable. Part of a Broader Trend in Legal AI and Education The Hotshot–Litera collaboration also reflects a broader trend: the convergence of legal AI platforms with education and change‑management offerings. As tools such as generative document drafting, AI‑powered due diligence, and agentic assistants move from pilots into production, many vendors are bolstering their training ecosystems through partnerships, integrations, and curated content libraries. For law firms, these developments highlight that technology adoption is no longer just an infrastructure decision. It requires sustained investment in learning and development, cultural change, and new metrics for competence and productivity. The integration of Hotshot’s courses into Litera’s CE Manager aims to lower the barrier to that investment by tying it directly to mandatory compliance processes and the everyday systems lawyers already use. Next Steps and Availability According to the announcement, the enhanced integration that surfaces Hotshot’s full library in CE Manager is expected to be available by the end of 2026, subject to implementation and testing. In the interim, firms already using both platforms can continue to leverage existing CLE tracking integrations and prepare for a more deeply unified learning experience. As the legal industry navigates the implications of AI‑driven practice, this collaboration positions Hotshot and Litera as partners for firms seeking to align talent development, compliance, and technology strategy. How widely and quickly firms adopt the integrated solution will be a key indicator of how seriously the market treats training as a core component of legal AI transformation.

Nic Reeve·