You're wrong about that.

How? If the tools were ran the same findings may have occurred.

No, the point is they are very different tools that produce very different outcomes. Your syllogism doesn't work.

Claude et al have “skills” that are basically containers of tools. It’s not a huge leap to say that similar tools are in use within these containers or even same. We don’t know.

Yes, we do.

Getting alot of short line replies. Got any link to any documentation / traceability to that claim?

I work in this field, have done work for some of the vendors we're discussing, and talk daily to security engineers working on these problems at these vendors. You are wrong.

Well we aren’t going to get anywhere. I asked for evidence and didn’t receive any.

Just so we're clear you're asking for evidence that Apple and Google... run fuzzers.

All software assurance tools. Prove they run them (binary analysis, fuzzers, static analysis, etc) and how that differs from what Mythos is doing (which likely is using those tools as skills) along with objective evidence for each

Yeah I'm pretty content to rest my case here. If it's helpful to you to know this, you're wildly wrong here, like "the search bar on this website will show you to be wrong" wrong, but I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for not answering.