OpenAI vs. Anthropic: the EU access split over cybersecurity AI

OpenAI: controlled access, but access-forward

OpenAI’s approach is not open public access. Its cyber-focused model is for approved users, and defenders granted access must be vetted and approved through its Trusted Access for Cyber program ^[6].

Within that controlled setting, however, OpenAI is taking the more expansionary position. Public reporting says the company is expanding access to advanced AI models so businesses and governments can strengthen cyber defenses ^[9]. Politico reported that approved users can use the model to find and patch vulnerabilities and analyze malware, while OpenAI says safeguards are intended to prevent unauthorized users from using it to carry out cyberattacks ^[6]. Euronews similarly reported that OpenAI’s cyber-defense model has fewer restrictions on cybersecurity-related questions for verified professionals using it for legitimate defensive purposes ^[7].

In short, OpenAI’s bet is that trusted defenders need access to frontier capabilities because attackers may also be using advanced tools. The gate remains controlled, but the circle of intended users is broader.

Anthropic: restriction-first and invitation-only

Anthropic’s posture is more restrictive. An EU-hosted AI Alliance post said Anthropic disclosed Claude Mythos Preview on 14 April 2026 and described it as a frontier model with cybersecurity capabilities significant enough, in Anthropic’s own assessment, to warrant deliberate restriction of public access ^[1].

Access runs through Project Glasswing, which grants usage to a closed group of critical-infrastructure partners by invitation rather than self-service ^[1]. That does not mean no one outside Anthropic can use it, but it does mean access is curated more tightly than OpenAI’s reported defender-and-government access strategy.

That difference is visible in the companies’ stated security logic. Reporting on the split says OpenAI is expanding access to help businesses and governments shore up defenses, while Anthropic argues that controlling access is the better way to improve global cybersecurity ^[9].

Why the EU angle matters

For the EU, the most concrete access gap in the available reporting concerns Anthropic. On 17 April 2026, the European Commission said Anthropic was in discussions with it about different models, including cybersecurity models, but that those cybersecurity models were not yet available in the EU ^[5].

That matters because model access affects oversight. A European Parliament question raised concerns about whether the EU had the technical capacity to enforce the rules it had adopted, noting that UK authorities reportedly gained access to Mythos and quickly produced a technical assessment while the Commission reportedly had neither access to the technology nor enough experts to assess the cybersecurity risks of cutting-edge AI systems ^[2].

The point is not that OpenAI has granted blanket EU access; the cited reporting does not establish that. The distinction is that OpenAI’s access model is built around vetted government and cyber-defender use, while Anthropic’s EU status was explicitly still unresolved when the Commission discussed it ^[5][6][9].

What this means in practice

For European cybersecurity agencies and critical-infrastructure defenders, OpenAI’s model appears to offer a clearer approval-based route: access is restricted, but it is designed for approved defenders and government users ^[6][9]. For Anthropic, the route is narrower: Project Glasswing is invitation-only, and the Commission said the relevant cyber models were not yet available in the EU ^[1][5].

For regulators, the trade-off is harder. Wider vetted access could help defenders test, patch, and analyze threats faster, but it also requires safeguards against misuse ^[6]. Tighter restriction could reduce the spread of sensitive capabilities, but it can also leave public authorities dependent on negotiations or outside assessments when they need to evaluate frontier cyber risks ^[1][2][5].

Bottom line: OpenAI is leaning toward controlled but wider defensive access; Anthropic is leaning toward tighter, invitation-only control. The EU’s immediate issue is that Anthropic’s cybersecurity models were still not available in the bloc, while OpenAI’s reported approach creates a broader vetted-access pathway rather than a public release ^[5][6][9].