Patching faster won't save you from AI-generated CVEs.

Patching faster won't save you from AI-generated CVEs.

Mythos-proofing frameworks generally lead with the same advice: patch more, patch faster, patch better. But that hits the wrong problem.

You cannot win a race where attackers find defects first and you're waiting for a vendor to ship a fix. Patching assumes the good guys get there first, every time. AI makes that a assumption... optimistic.

This week on Threats, Pitfalls and Risk Myths, the TPRM Podcast, we talk with Jerry Perullo, who ran security as the CISO at Intercontinental Exchange securing the NY Stock Exchange among other critical infrastructure for over 20 years. His team's log4j Friday night looked nothing like most. While the rest of the industry ran find commands across hundreds of thousands of hosts, his bug bounty inbox filled up with researchers reporting "I can confirm the version is vulnerable but I can't actually pull down a payload."

P1 became P3.

Sixty day SLA instead of weekend war room.

The difference was egress filtering. Years of unsexy work locking down what production systems could call out to. Five hosts did light up. All in subsidiaries acquired late and not yet brought under the policy. The governance meetings had flagged that exact entity for months.

Equifax is the canonical "they didn't patch" story yet nobody asks why a production server was allowed to download a random payload from the open internet in the first place. Blocking egress would have made it a non-issue.

If your Mythos plan is "patch better," you're optimizing the wrong layer.