Cisco's open-weight bug busters take on Google and OpenAI 60%

7/21/2026, 9:17:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 173 hits. Analysis detected 1,157 faulty-reasoning hits from 667 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.2% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,749 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.00% of the article peer group.

Who needs expensive frontier models to find software vulns? 
Cisco has just released two open-weight models that specialize in finding known bugs in existing codebases. 
The models, Antares-350M and Antares-1B, are part of Cisco’s new Antares family of security small language models (SLMs), and are now available on Hugging Face - but only to vetted users. 
“We’re making sure we’re gating that and appropriately granting access,” DJ Sampath, Cisco's senior vice president and general manager of AI software and platform, told The Register. 
The company is working with academic and nonprofit organizations, as well as smaller and public organizations’ security teams, to ensure they have access to the vulnerability-hunting models. 
Plus, because both are small models designed to run locally, “you also need the keys to the source code” to scan for and find vulnerabilities, Sampath said. 
“This means an attacker is going to be able to exploit an endpoint or a service that you have.” 
It also means that proprietary code never leaves the organization’s machines, compared to cloud-based LLMs that send code to the AI providers’ external servers for processing and analysis. 
This enables security analysis in environments with strict privacy or compliance requirements, according to the networking and security giant. 
And yes, it's named after the massive red super-giant star. 
“It's almost 1,000 times bigger than the sun, even though the sun dominates the sky, and that is the analogy that we're using here for vulnerability detection and localization,” Cisco VP and chief AI scientist Amin Karbasi told The Register. 
“The impact of vulnerabilities in your codebase is huge, but it might be only a single file or a few lines of code in a million lines of code.” 
A future, 3-billion-parameter model in the Antares family won’t be released to the public, Karbasi added. 
“We are completely gating the 3B model to make sure that we responsibly release it to communities that need it,” he said. 
Small yet mighty Cisco claims that its models perform as well as or better than dozens of larger models in its new benchmark test that measures how efficiently AI models identify security flaws in codebases. 
Antares-1B outperforms Google’s Gemini 3 Pro and is comparable to Z.ai's GLM-5.2, we’re told, while the yet-to-be-released Antares-3B does a better job at finding vulnerabilities than GLM-5.2 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5. 
Plus, we’re told that the small models scan code much faster and at a fraction of the cost of larger, token-gobbling AI systems. 
“If you look at the performance, in terms of the time it takes to finish 500 repositories, Antares finishes the entire cohort of repositories in 15 minutes, whereas frontier models take five hours,” Karbasi said, adding that this translates to significantly less cost. 
“It takes like less than $1 whereas frontier models are above $100 into $150 of cost,” he added. 
The difference, Karbasi explained, is that Cisco took a “fundamentally different approach” to building Antares. 
“These models have been trained in a very different way,” he said. 
“Antares is inherently not a chatbot. 
It is an investigator. 
It is a search engine. 
It has to find a very specific thing that might be a needle in a haystack, and it goes and finds that.” 
This required training the model on several different ways to search for vulnerabilities “because one way of search may not actually be fruitful, then it has to change its strategy, do it another way, and then do it another way,” Karbasi said. 
“Because it is very nimble and it’s very small, it can actually do a lot of search at the same time, which is very different from bigger models.” 
Karbasi likened it to a bicycle on a busy London street: “You can go much faster than the biggest truck.” 
Or, to use Sampath’s favorite analogy for the benefits of using a small, security-focused model to find bugs in code: “Sometimes you don't need a private jet to go to a corner store, right?” 
® 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.7%The Register: 3.3%Confirmation Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%The Register: 3.2%Availability Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%The Register: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias25.9%This article: 12.4%The Register: 5.0%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%The Register: 0.8%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%The Register: 3.0%Optimism Bias9.1%This article: 1.3%The Register: 2.6%Pessimism Bias1.3%This article: 4.2%The Register: 8.2%Negativity Bias4.2%This article: 3.3%The Register: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%The Register: 1.4%Halo Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%The Register: 1.9%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%The Register: 4.2%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 6.4%The Register: 1.7%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 2.8%The Register: 1.2%Slippery Slope2.8%This article: 6.3%The Register: 0.1%Circular Reasoning6.3%This article: 11.4%The Register: 6.2%Hasty Generalization11.4%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%The Register: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 3.3%The Register: 0.9%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.2%The Register: 0.3%Composition/Division4.2%This article: 9.7%The Register: 2.2%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.4%The Register: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.4%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%The Register: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.8%

667 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers64%attributed speech238writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageDJ Sampath • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDJ Sampath • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDJ Sampath • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 40 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 43 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 42 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAmin Karbasi • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDJ Sampath • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

DJ Sampath

100%flagged-word coverage
107 attributed words25% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.2 ptsWriter: 26.5%DJ Sampath: 25.2%25.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.