Insights
·
Mill Creek publications
Standing briefs from the firm.
Long-form thinking from Mill Creek on agentic application security
— the threat patterns we are seeing in production, the
engineering decisions behind Olympus, anonymized notes from
the engagement floor, and the occasional letter from the
partners. Published when there is something specific worth
saying.
What we publish
Four kinds of writing.
Threat briefs are focused analyses of
specific patterns we are seeing in production, written for
other security operators.
Engineering notes are technical writing on
Olympus internals — how the sprites are built, why
the constraints look the way they do, what we have learned
shipping pull requests on someone else's codebase.
Field notes are anonymized engagement
stories: a situation, an intervention, an outcome.
Letters are positioning essays from the
partners, written when a question keeps coming up enough
that an answer is worth committing in print.
We do not publish to a calendar. We publish when there is
something specific worth saying. The cadence is roughly
one piece a month; sometimes two, occasionally none. If
you want to be told when something new lands, the email
list runs from the bottom of this page.
Featured
Most recent.
Threat brief
·
21 April 2026
A summary of every Mythos-derivative agent we have seen
weaponized this year, the three exploit classes that keep
showing up, and a frank assessment of which remediation
pipelines absorbed them and which broke.
[Founder placeholder],
Founder & chief executive
·
14 min read
Archive
Standing publications.
Earlier pieces, most recent first. Filter by category soon.
-
Engineering notes
·
14 April 2026
We get this question more than any other. The answer is
a small set of constraints that turn out, on reflection,
to be the product itself.
[Head of engineering],
Head of engineering
·
18 min read
-
Field notes
·
28 March 2026
An anonymized account of a Mythos-era agent whose
authority quietly expanded twenty-six integrations
beyond what the original change ticket described. What
we found, what we changed, what the audit committee
decided to do with it.
[Founder placeholder],
Founder & chief executive
·
9 min read
-
Letter
·
17 March 2026
Three years of audit-committee read-outs distilled into
the questions that actually matter and the answers that
consistently work. Less performance, more disclosure.
[Founder placeholder],
Founder & chief executive
·
7 min read
-
Threat brief
·
25 February 2026
A taxonomy of the pivots we are seeing in production
agentic systems, with concrete examples drawn from the
red-team engagement lane. The vendor security review
does not catch this, and we explain why.
[Director, Adversarial Engineering],
Director, adversarial engineering
·
16 min read
-
Engineering notes
·
11 February 2026
The reasoning behind the multi-agent finding-grading
architecture, the specific failure modes we designed
around, and why the customer always sees the dissent
log alongside the resolution.
[Director, Source Audit],
Director, source audit
·
22 min read
-
Field notes
·
22 January 2026
An anonymized case from the Olympus retainer book.
Material non-public information was not disclosed
because the evidence layer was already in place when
the incident began.
[Founder placeholder],
Founder & chief executive
·
11 min read
-
Letter
·
8 January 2026
The sentence we end every brief with, and why it has
been worth the legal review every time. A short
argument for treating the merged pull request as the
security artifact, not the finding.
[Founder placeholder],
Founder & chief executive
·
6 min read
Standing list
Get a note when we publish.
One email per piece, sent the morning it lands. No newsletter
digest, no marketing sequence, no third-party tracking. We
publish at most one or two pieces a month.