> What would the IoCs even be?

Prompts.

The prompts aren't the key to the attack, though. They were able to get around guardrails with task decomposition.

There is no way for the AI system to verify whether you are white hat or black hat when you are doing pen-testing if the only task is to pen-test. Since this is not part of a "broader attack" (in the context), there is no "threat".

I don't see how this can be avoided, given that there are legitime uses to every step of this in creating defenses to novel attacks.

Yes, all of this can be done with code and humans as well - but it is the scale and the speed that becomes problematic. It can adjust in real-time to individual targets and does not need as much human intervention / tailoring.

Is this obvious? Yes - but it seems they are trying to raise awareness of an actual use of this in the wild and get people discussing it.

	▲	padolsey 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that there will be no single call or inference that presents malice. But I feel like they could still share general patterns of orchestration (latencies, concurrencies, general cadences and parallelization of attacks, prompts used to granulaize work, whether prompts themselves have been generated in previous calls to Claude). There's a bunch of more specific telltales they could have alluded to. I think it's likely they're being obscure because they don't want to empower bad actors, but that's not really how the cybersecurity industry likes to operates. Maybe Anthropic believes this entire AI thing is a brand new security regime and so believe existing resiliences are moot. That we should all follow blindly as they lead the fight. Their narrative is confusing. Are they being actually transparent or transparency-"coded"?