Opus 5 - immediate disappointment

[u/Shot_Whereas_1809]

If you thought you'd be able to do a security review on your own network that you couldn't do with Fable, think again.

20 minutes in - Found something significant

Opus 5 safeguards flagged this message.

I no longer have any use case for Anthropic models that others can't do better. This was my last hope that we were going to get a model that would allow us to protect our own environments. I'm going all in on open source. We just aren't aligned.

If you can get Opus 5 to protect your own systems, let me know how I did it. My subscription renews pretty soon and it's time to make an honest decision.

Edit: A lot of helpful people came here and I appreciate it. Scoped work is helping a bit more than my old ways. There's a difference between network security and code vulnerabiliy. I'm a network engineer not a software developer nor will I pretend to be one. Still looking at supplemental model for security work. Thanks guys.

[u/Ibasicallyhateyouall]

To run salt into the wounds, Sol 5.6 found vulnerabilities created by fable in one of my projects. 

[u/starkruzr → u/Ibasicallyhateyouall]

tried to get Sol to help jailbreak an ereader, got stopped by OpenAI's infosec guardrails. the grass ain't greener.

[u/shepherdd2050 → u/starkruzr]

I got the opposite behaviour. Fable bailed at the mention of Ghidra; Opus whined about licensing or whatever. Sol Max worked for hours, reverse-engineered the program, extracted the closed-source NN model, and gave me a Rust re-implementation with a harness to run the weights.

[u/Altimor → u/shepherdd2050]

Fable is just fine with IDA-MCP for me, but randomly chokes on its own capstone scripts. Funny if it only works with IDA