Experts Question Claims of the First “AI Cyber-Espionage” – Pointing to Missing Evidence

Anthropic claims a Chinese-linked hacking group used its Claude Code assistant to automate parts of intrusion workflows, allegedly targeting around thirty organizations in what the company framed as a historic moment for AI-enabled cyber operations. But within hours, the report was met with skepticism from researchers who argue the disclosure lacks the depth and verification expected from a major incident.

Specifically, Anthropic alleged that attackers misused its Claude Code AI assistant to automate parts of intrusion workflows, targeting around 30 organizations, according to an article by The Conversation published on November 17.

Immediately, the report drew attention across cybersecurity circles, with some experts calling it a “preview of the future,” while others argued the findings lack the verification expected from major incident disclosures, saying the description leaves key operational questions unanswered.

Notably, Claude Code features guardrails against malicious use, but Anthropic says attackers bypassed protections via role-playing prompts, a method known from earlier generative AI jailbreaks. While the claim aligns with familiar AI misuse patterns, analysts note the company hasn’t yet demonstrated how consistently or effectively the attackers exploited the tool.

Why the Claims Are Being Challenged

As it happens, security analysts have pointed to the absence of published indicators of compromise (IoCs), attack infrastructure data, code samples, or malware signatures. Such details are standard in comprehensive cyber-incident reporting as they allow other defenders to check for matching activity.

Without them, experts can’t confirm whether the campaign occurred as described, whether related intrusions are active elsewhere, or how critical the threat actually is.

In addition, Anthropic has reported that Claude often hallucinated, falsely claiming completed actions that it had not performed. This is in line with known limitations of generative AI in structured operational tasks. 

According to the report, attackers targeted roughly 30 organizations, but succeeded against only a few, adding to doubts among analysts who expected a clearer, higher-impact demonstration if the incident was to be considered historically significant.

Nonetheless, specialists stress that disagreement over this case doesn’t invalidate the broader risk. Even if today’s results are inconsistent, capability curves in cyber operations tend to rise quickly, and defenders risk falling behind if they wait for a case with perfect clarity.

More Must-Reads:

• Massive Security Flaw Puts 3 Billion WhatsApp Users at Risk
• U.S. Deploys Special Unit to Target Chinese Crypto Scammers
• Google Sues Chinese Cybercriminals Behind Massive Phishing Campaigns