“Much of the noise is overly emotive”
Marion Stewart, CEO, Red Helix
There’s a lot of noise around “Mythos”, but much of it overly emotive in my opinion. It’s neither something to panic about nor blindly celebrate, it’s a development that needs to be approached with pragmatic balance and clear consideration of both its risks and benefits.
If we strip the branding away, what’s really being discussed is the next iteration of AI capability.
Models like those from Anthropic and OpenAI are becoming more capable, more autonomous, and easier to operationalise. That absolutely raises the baseline risk. It lowers the barrier to entry for more sophisticated attacks whether that’s highly convincing social engineering, faster vulnerability discovery, or the ability to iterate on malicious tooling at speed. For many organisations, particularly in the mid-market, that will translate into increased pressure on already stretched security teams.
But the other side of that equation is just as important. The same acceleration applies to defence. For MSSPs, this is an opportunity to materially enhance detections, improve response times enormously, and increase analyst effectiveness.
I think that the key difference will be in execution. Those who embed AI into core SOC workflows will pull ahead quickly, while those treating it as an experiment will fall behind.
What “Mythos” really represents is a compression of timelines. It removes any remaining comfort that cyber can be managed reactively or improved incrementally. Both attackers and defenders now have access to more powerful tooling, and the gap between the two will increasingly come down to how effectively that capability is deployed.
So overall I believe that yes, it introduces new risk, but it’s also a catalyst. For providers like Red Helix, it reinforces the need to stay ahead of the curve and ensure our clients are benefiting from these advances before threat actors fully do.
Mythos “doesn’t suddenly change everything overnight”. Which MSSP leader said this? See next page…
