Using AI to code does not mean your code is more secure
What happened
Researchers affiliated with Georgia Tech SSLab have been tracking CVEs attributable to flaws in AI-generated code. Last August, they found just two CVEs that could be definitively linked to Claude Code – CVE-2025-55526, a 9. This matters for IT, Telecom & Cyber because fresh price movement and input-cost detail should reset bid assumptions, breach response slas, and negotiation guardrails with 2025-55526, 9.1, 35 as the clearest commercial anchors; expect renewal uplift asks
Buyer takeaway
For IT, Telecom & Cyber, treat this as a cost-boundary signal rather than just a headline; buyer assumptions may need refreshing before the next quote or award decision
Cost / money
Use this to refresh should-cost views and challenge any fast repricing. Keep the read-through directional unless the source itself provides hard commercial numbers
Supplier / commercial
Suppliers with fresh cost justification may push harder on reopeners, indexation, shorter quote validity, or pass-through language. Buyers should separate real drivers from negotiation posture
Safety / operations
The operational risk is indirect: tight budgets or repricing battles often reappear later as reduced slack, substitutions, or execution compromises that buyers then have to manage
What to watch
Watch for shorter quote validity, reopeners, pass-through requests, or attempts to reset pricing on the back of weak evidence
Key facts
- Researchers affiliated with Georgia Tech SSLab have been tracking CVEs attributable to flaws
- Last August, they found just two CVEs that could be definitively linked to Claude Code – CVE
- 1 severity directory traversal vulnerability in n8n-workflows, and GHSA-3j63-5h8p-gf7c, an im
- In March, they identified 35 CVEs – 27 of which were authored by Claude Code, 4 by GitHub Cop
