Claude Mythos exposed a hard truth: Your enterprise patching process is way too slow

In 2024, researchers from the University of Illinois found that GPT-4, when provided with a common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVE) description, could autonomously exploit 87% of a curated 15-vulnerability one-day dataset. Without the description, it could only exploit 7%. This provided a “margin of safety” for the industry because while AI could exploit known vulnerabilities, it could not discover them. However, on April 7, Anthropic announced that Claude Mythos Preview had closed that margin, with the model autonomously discovering thousands of zero-day vulnerabilities across major operating systems and browsers. Separately, Mythos scored 83.1% on the CyberGym vulnerability reproduction benchmark. In one campaign targeting OpenBSD across 1,000 scaffold runs, the total compute cost was less than $20,000. Exploitation timelines are collapsing. Langflow’s CVE-2026-33017 (CVSS 9.8) was exploited 20 hours after disclosure with no public proof-of-concept. Marimo’s CVE-2026-39987 (CVSS 9.3) was hit in 9 hours and 41 minutes . The defensive infrastructure most organizations rely on wasn’t designed for this. Rapid7’s 2026 threat landscape report states that the median time from CVE publication to CISA's known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV) listing is five days. Google’s M-Trends 2026 report found that exploitation is happening before a patch is even released. When the Langflow advisory was published, the first exploit arrived in 20 hours. When the Marimo advisory was published, it took under 10 hours. The assumption that your patch window is safe because exploitation takes time is no longer true. Here are your building blocks. Replace CVSS-only prioritization with a three-layer filter Most vulnerability management programs still prioritize by CVSS score alone. CVSS quantifies a vulnerability’s “theoretical” severity without considering whether a vulnerability is being exploited in the wild or how quickly someone could weaponize it. A CVSS 8.8 vulnerability with a history of active exploitation (like Docker’s CVE-2026-34040 ) gets lower priority than a CVSS 9.8 vulnerability that may never be exploited in the wild. A recent study validated against 28,377 real-world vulnerabilities offers a concrete replacement: A three-layer decision tree incorporating CISA KEV status, Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) scores, and CVSS, thus forming a singular prioritization filter. Three-Layer Vulnerability Prioritization Filter Layer Data source Threshold Action SLA 1. Active exploitation CISA KEV catalog Listed Immediate patching Hours 2. Predicted exploitation EPSS via FIRST.org Score ≥ 0.088 Escalate to Tier 0 pipeline 24 hours 3. Severity baseline CVSS via NVD Score ≥ 7.0 Typical remediation Per policy Validated result: 18x efficiency gain, 85.6% coverage of exploited vulnerabilities, ~95% reduction in urgent remediation workload. All three data sources are open and free. The described integration is entirely automatable. It’s possible to build a script to query the CISA KEV API, the EPSS API from FIRST.org, and the NVD , and have that script run against your asset inventory for every published CVE. The human in this process should remain in the loop as an approver, but not as the trigger. Close the agent authorization gap Creating exploits quickly not only changes how patches are prioritized, but how controls are configured for all the agent-driven systems that now possess privileged credentials. Your authorization policies have not been assessed against the behavior of AI agents, and that is now a measurable risk. CVE-2026-34040 showed that Docker’s authorization plugin architecture silently bypasses every plugin when the request body exceeds 1MB. Common AuthZ plugins (OPA, Casbin, Prisma Cloud) are unaware of this type of bypass, which occurs in Docker’s middleware before the request reaches the plugin. When Cyera demonstrated this vulnerability , they showed that an AI agent debugging infrastructure could infer the bypass path while completing a legitimate task, without any instruction to exploit anything. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is working on authorization models for agents. The document draft-klrc-aiagent-auth-01 , published in March by participants from AWS, Zscaler, Ping Identity, and OpenAI, proposes the use of the current Secure Production Identity Framework for Everyone (SPIFFE) and OAuth 2.0 for AI agents to obtain dynamically provisioned and short-lived credentials. Separately, the IETF Agent Identity Protocol draft (draft-prakash-aip-00) reports that out of about 2,000 surveyed model context protocol (MCP) servers, none had authentication. But these standards are months to years away from implementation. For now, security teams must proactively incorporate agent-level test scenarios for all authorization boundaries, such as oversized requests, burst frequency, and multi-step escalation of privileged requests. Map your credential blast radius In a survey conducted by CSA/Zenity and published on April 16, 53% of organizations said they had already seen cases where AI agents exceeded their intended permissions, and 47% experienced a security incident involving an agent. When AI builder tools such as Flowise (CVE-2025-59528, CVSS 10.0), Langflow, or n8n become compromised, the blast radius extends far beyond the host. These tools contain API keys to frontier models, database credentials, vector store tokens, and OAuth tokens to business systems. A compromised AI builder host is not just a single-system breach. It is a credential harvest that unlocks authenticated access to every connected service. Without credential dependency maps for each AI tool host, incident response for agent compromise is guesswork. For every instance, document each credential, the extent of its access, and the relevant credential rotation process. Also begin migrating static API keys to short-lived tokens where downstream services allow. Five actions for this quarter 1. Deploy the three-layer KEV-EPSS-CVSS filter Substitute CVSS-only prioritization according to the table above. Automate the collection of data from all three APIs as part of a scheduled script against your asset inventory. Desired outcome: 18 times more efficient, 85.6% coverage of exploited vulnerabilities, 95% reduction in urgent remediation workload. 2. Implement event-driven patching for Tier 0 services. Determine which services fall under the critical exposure tier: Services exposed directly to internet users, AI builder hosts, and container orchestration control plane. Trigger event-driven patching on a CVE publication instead of waiting for the next maintenance window for this tier. Goal: deploy patch to canary within four hours of a CVE being declared critical. Use the CISA KEV and EPSS feeds to trigger event-driven patching. In situations where it is impossible to meet the goal of four-hour patching because of legacy dependencies, change-freeze windows, or rollback risk, immediately apply compensating controls such as removing internet exposure to the vulnerable service, rotating credentials for the vulnerable service, disabling affected functionality of the service (if applicable), and identifying an exception owner for the exposure until a patch can be deployed. It is not acceptable to allow unbounded exposures for extended periods while awaiting a maintenance window. 3. Test authorization boundaries at agent scale. Create test cases for every API that AI agents may communicate with via AuthZ policies. Specifically, include test cases for requests exceeding 1MB, 5MB, and 10MB body sizes. This includes test cases for burst rate > 100 requests per second and test cases for unusual parameter combinations (privileged flags, host mounts, capability additions). Additionally, patch to Docker Engine 29.3.1 to fix CVE-2026-34040. 4. Credential blast radius mapping for all AI builder hosts. Document each credential for each Langflow, Flowise, n8n, and custom AI pipeline instance. Classify each credential by its lifespan (static key vs. short-lived token). Identify what each credential can access. Set up alerts for anomalous IP or identity for any credential access. 5. Shadow AI discovery scan for this week. According to CSA data, there is a greater than 50% chance that your agents have exceeded their expected boundaries. Check your Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) and network monitoring tools for communications to the default ports of the AI builder: Langflow 7860, Flowise 3000, and n8n 5678. Any unauthorized instances are an unmonitored attack surface. The takeaway AI agents are emerging, and t he standards bodies are responding. The IETF has multiple drafts related to agent authentication and authorization. The Coalition for Secure AI has published its MCP Security taxonomy and Secure-by-Design principles . But these standards move at standards-body speed, and the exploit window is now measured in hours. Organizations that implement the three-layer filter and event-driven patching this quarter will have a measurable reduction in exposure. Those who wait will be running calendar-based patch cycles against an adversary that operates in less than 20 hours. Nik Kale is a principal engineer specializing in enterprise AI platforms and security