> Opus 5’s safeguards match those of Claude Fable 5’s, with one change: it now permits source-code vulnerability discovery at all access levels. This means that the model can support defensive cybersecurity work while still blocking vulnerability discovery in compiled binaries, which is more commonly used offensively.

Okay so it’s worse than Opus 4.8 for my purposes I guess?

▲

sebzim4500 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Presumably it drops back to 4.8 in those cases so it's not really worse

	▲	tyre 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yes. At the bottom of the release post it says that they are releasing two new features, one of which is customizing fallback behavior instead of blocking for restricted models

▲

yukIttEft 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What are your purposes?

▲

not_a9 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Reversing for the most part, though lately I’ve been doing some code obfuscation/binary rewriting stuff. Fable will switch to Opus instantly on these and I’m unsure how this will perform. I suppose the only way to find out is to test.

▲

roboyoshi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's rather broad right now. I started reverse engineering a mac app and it started reading some binary data and then quickly told me to switch to Opus 4.8 to continue, because the guardrails kicked in.

▲

ciefa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Try GPT 5.6 Sol if you haven't yet.

I recently created a patch for Riftborne via static IL patching and Fable 5 outright kept refusing to do it, no issue whatsoever with GPT 5.6 Sol lol.

▲

jaggederest 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am very excited for a future where all software is by default modifiable, even shipped binaries, via patches or trampolining, or trickery I don't even know the name of.

	▲	derac an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's essentially here, I've had success with gpt-5.6 and Ghidra MCP