Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien

Why TikTok’s Algorithm Keeps You Trapped in a Breakup Loop

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:15:45 +0200

As social media companies face scrutiny over addictive design features, mental health experts cite a stream of breakup content as an example of the failure to protect users.

Firefox's New Tab Page Will Get Widgets - Including an AI-Powered Daily Crossword

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:16:12 +0200

In a sign of the times, Firefox's New Tab page could soon include a crossword puzzle from AI-powered news platform Particle. The blog OMG Ubuntu reports: The mini crossword game is updated daily, with puzzles based around recent content Particle's AI has ingested and summarised that day. [After solving the crossword, links appear to related news articles...] If you just want to try the crossword, you access it in any browser via a direct link. While it may look like Mozilla is trying to capitalise on the Wordle craze several years too late, it's part of its strategy to make the Firefox new tab page a discover destination in itself, not just a springboard for new searches. The 'Daily Grind' crossword widget (name subject to change) is just one of several widgets Firefox has (or will get). You'll also find a to-do list, timer, stock checker, world clock, picture of the day, privacy report and new-look weather widget (bigger than the existing one). During the World Cup 2026, Firefox offered real-time match scores and fixture information too... [T]hey aren't mandatory. You can disable the ones you don't want to use, or, if you don't want any at all, turn them all off to hide the widget area itself. A button to 'show fewer widgets' frees up room to allow other distractions (sponsored stories) on the new tab page to show... [Presumably you can also still open new tabs to a blank page...] They're rolling out to users in certain region and locales already. Plus, Mozilla routinely tests new features with a small set of users before they hit stable builds (i.e., the "Allow Firefox to run feature studies" setting). If you don't have widgets in your Firefox build, but you want them, you can manually enable them in Firefox 153 and later from the about:config page. Search for the following master switch and set it to true to enable the widget area: browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.widgets.system.enabled Then, enable the widgets you want to use by searching: activity-stream.widgets.*.enabled However, the usual caveats about "trying things not enabled by default" still apply. Mozilla hasn't set a firm rollout date, though the feature is already documented on its support site. With fortnightly Firefox releases about to start, and a big Nova redesign, chances are we'll all be puzzling over these widgets sooner rather than later.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Firefox' New Tab Page Will Get Widgets - Including an AI-Powered Daily Crossword

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:31:16 +0200

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:13 +0200

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Apple could ‘run the table’ on AI if it does things right

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:13 +0200

Looking ahead just a short time, Apple could hold a powerful position in AI where it most makes sense: deployment.

Not only will the company offer up its own AI models for the kind of tasks millions use ChatGPT to do today, but it will provide more sophisticated on-device agentic models to help users get things done through Siri AI.

Apple also offers limited capacity for more complex tasks through Private Cloud Compute, and, in partnership with the likes of Google in the US and Alibaba in China, the company is giving users a trusted conduit through which to access even more sophisticated AI services.

Deeply deployable

Critics can say it took Apple a long time to get to this point, but they also seem to think the company has finally got the mix right with its series 27 operating systems. Arriving late to a party doesn’t mean you won’t shine once you get there.

Apple is also coming up the inside lane around frontier AI, with iterative OS and hardware enhancements that mean its devices become increasingly effective for Edge AI use cases, on device — no cloud service required.

The company appears to be digging down into those use cases. Mark Gurman at Bloomberg recently predicted that future M7 Ultra Macs will support as much as 1.5TB RAM, making these systems more than capable of running full weight frontier models in people’s offices, colleges, and homes.

While that does assume the AI-flationary memory market can supply that much RAM at prices humans can afford, it is also true that people are already running AI clusters using off-the-shelf Mac minis networked over Thunderbolt cables. It’s no stretch to believe this will continue to be the case, and that it will even broaden as the power/performance offered at the high end grows.

What’s wrong with good enough?

When combined with open AI stacks, particularly newly emerging varieties, Apple’s platforms should become leading contenders for private AI services and edge AI. Many business users will leap at the chance to offer their workers powerful, self-hosted, private AI services using one or more daisy-chained Mac Studios or Mac minis. The recent craze in deployment of both Macs to support OpenClaw instances shows they already are.

Ultimately, these different slices of momentum mean I agree with investor Jason Calacanis that Apple is in position to apply a great deal of pressure on OpenAI and Claude just by putting models on their devices.

It’s also worth thinking about how people use AI today. How many of the queries made in the world right now constitute relatively simple tasks that could be transacted by on-device AI, such as the emerging new version of Apple Intelligence or even smaller LLM models running on device? You can even run PrismML’s 1-bit, 27-billion parameter Bonsai on an iPad using the Locally app, and that’s in the here and now.

What happens? Pretty soon you’ll find people recognize that they can already run the vast majority of their AI-augmented workflows using services they have on their existing device or can access on their on-prem Mac set-ups. And, of course, as people get used to running small tasks locally and larger tasks on premises, the actual space in which they need to turn to cloud-based frontier models will erode. That’s even as companies like PrismML work towards slimming down full-weight models so they don’t need to run on a server at all.

“It’s going to be wild when people have unlimited tokens on their desks,” said Calacanis in a podcast round table discussion.

Who has the most to lose?

The current incarnations of AI felt like they came from nowhere. Most people weren’t aware of the technology until returning to work after the 2022 holiday season. Since then, the industry has proliferated with dozens of competing models, most recently including powerful but affordable frontier models such as Qwen and Kimi.ai.

These models aren’t necessarily all as good as one another, but in many cases for much of what we do, we’ll find them to be good enough. That’s an existential crisis for some, as industry observers now think the inevitable pricing pressure means some services might have over-invested in capacity before finding any way to turn a profit.

Those profit-seeking services are the ones with the most to lose as Apple extends its hardware advantage, democratizing AI access for all while providing platforms suitable for edge AI, on-premises AI, private AI, and even AI access using third-party services. (The need for the latter will shrink as the capabilities of the former get better.)

Cupertino rising

What does this all mean? While the industry remains young, it is already fragmenting. And striding through the dust of that process comes Apple, equipped with the hardware, software, and approach to build its business even as the enterprise of first mover AI services erodes.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

Your instant Android backup upgrade

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:10 +0200

Here in this high-tech era of 2026, keeping important info backed up and synced should be effortless and something that just happens on its own, automatically, without any actual thought or ongoing human effort.

In many areas of our digital life, that mercifully does Just Work™ in exactly that way. Fire up an email in most modern mail services, and you can stop at any point and find your in-progress draft in that same app on any other device. The same applies to any file you’re finessing within Google Drive or other cloud storage services or document you’re dawdling over in Docs.

One area where seamless syncing somehow still doesn’t occur, though, is in the domain of downloaded documents on Android. If someone sends you a PDF or a Word file and you save it to your phone, that file exists in an archaic-seeming silo — only locally, on that one gadget. And that, of course, means (a) you can’t access it from any other device, and (b) if you misplace your phone or move into a new one at some point along the way, the file will be left behind in time and entirely unavailable.

Well, take a moment to join me in celebration: Amidst all the Gemini gobbledegook that no one asked for (and that often falls somewhere between “pointless” and “actively counterproductive”), Google’s giving us a major upgrade to Android’s backup capabilities right now. It’s a simple-seeming switch buried in your system settings, and it’s up to you to find and activate it.

Once you do, though, those once-orphaned documents on your Android device’s local storage will be perpetually synced and protected, automatically, without any ongoing thought or effort.

All you’ve gotta do is find and flip that one new switch.

[Don’t let yourself miss an ounce of Android Intelligence. Join my free weekly Android Intelligence newsletter and get one new thing to try in your inbox every Friday!]

The Android backup lowdown

So, for a quick bit of pertinent context on this: Android’s backup systems have actually come a really long way over the years.

‘Twas a time, y’see, when little to nothing about you would sync and carry over automatically from one Android device to another. Years ago — back in the ancient-seeming prehistoric era of the early 2010s — Android enthusiasts in the know would rely on community-created third-party apps for everything from remembering and resyncing downloaded apps to restoring data from within those apps and onward. And reconfiguring your system preferences would be a whole time-consuming song and dance every single time you reset a device or moved into a new one, as little to nothing would automatically carry over.

Most of that stuff is now effortless and automatic. And, thanks to apps like Google Messages, Calendar, Drive, and Docs, many other areas of important data are also synced on their own at the app level — outside of any system mechanisms.

Locally stored files, however, have remained an awkward omission. To this day, anything you download on any Android device exists only on that one device and isn’t synced or backed up anywhere. The only way that happens is — in a blast-from-the-past twist — if you go out of your way to find and set up a third-party app to handle the heavy lifting.

That brings us to today. Right now, as we speak, Google’s in the midst of sending out a quiet under-the-hood update that (brace yourself…) adds in the option to automatically sync and back up any documents on your device as a native part of Android’s backup setup.

See?

The easily overlooked new option for backing up documents on Android.

JR Raphael, Foundry

The option is on its way to all devices running 2018’s Android 9 release and higher. (If you’re still using a phone with an Android version older than that, you’re now a whopping eight years out of date, and you have much bigger problems.)

Once the added option is present and available for you, you’re literally lookin’ at 10 seconds to find and activate it.

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

No matter what kind of Android device is in front of you, just head into your system settings and open the section called “Accounts and backup,” “Back up or copy data,” or something along those same lines. (The exact wording can vary based on who made your device and when it was released or last updated.)

Either tap the line labeled “Google Backup” or look for an option to “Back up data” via Google Drive. You should then either see a series of options for different areas of available backup right then and there — or, depending on your device, you might have to tap a line labeled “Other device data” (or something similar) to find the full list of possibilities.

However you get there, once you’re lookin’ at that list, you’ll see a newly added line for “Documents” if this latest under-the-hood update has reached you.

Android’s expanded list of backup options — now including documents alongside other forms of on-device data.

JR Raphael, Foundry

And from there, all that’s left is to tap it and enable the switch to include that in your automated backups from that moment forward.

If you aren’t seeing the option yet, don’t panic. Google always sends these under-the-hood updates out bit by bit over time, so the change probably just hasn’t reached your device quite yet. As long as you’re running Android 9 or higher, it’ll get there. Set yourself a reminder to check back once a week or so. Odds are, you’ll see it pretty soon.

Notably, all documents synced in this way are always encrypted for security, and they’re kept in your personal (or, depending on the nature of your account, perhaps company-connected) Google Drive storage. That does mean they’ll count against your overall Google storage total, so keep an eye on your Drive storage total to make sure you’re in solid shape and look to the Google One storage hub if you ever want some simple suggestions for freeing up space.

Speaking of other Google services: If you ever want to keep other types of locally stored non-document files from an Android device synced and available elsewhere, you can easily rely on Google Photos for syncing screenshots and other images — after enabling sync in general, be sure to look in the app’s “Collections” areas to find the “On this device” folder and then flip the toggle to “Backup all device folders” (or get more nuanced and open specific individual on-device folders if you want to sync some but not all of those areas) — and you can still turn to those aforementioned third-party apps for broader syncing of anything else imaginable.

But with documents now being handled automatically and natively, that’s one big worry now out of your hair. Just note that the onus will fall on you to find and flip the switch and actively opt in to the feature on each and every Android device you’re using.

Take 10 seconds to do that, though, and you’ll have one less void in your Android data arena. And you don’t need Gemini to tell you that that can only be a good thing.

Get practical Android knowledge in your inbox every Friday with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — one new thing to try each week, straight from me to you.

Sam Altman’s biometric startup World raises $52.5M via crypto sale

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:49:49 +0200

Sam Altman's side project — which seeks to scan the world's eyeballs and turn them into unique digital identifiers — has raised some fresh cash through a crypto sale.

SpaceX launches new V3 Starlink satellites but suffers another booster failure

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:49:40 +0200

The company ticked off a few more boxes on the second Starship V3 flight, but appears to have had another issue relighting the booster's rocket engines.

Children and chatbots: What parents should know

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:04:42 +0200

As children turn to AI chatbots for answers, advice, and companionship, questions emerge about their safety, privacy, and emotional development

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 - Day Two Results

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:55 +0200

Day Two of Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 and the stakes continue to rise! Security researchers are back on the Pwn2Own stage, pushing enterprise systems to their limits as the competition heats up. More exploits, more surprises, and more standout moments are unfolding, so follow along here for live updates as the race for Master of Pwn intensifies. There were plenty of big targets on the schedule today, including SharePoint, Exchange, and Safari.

Following an action-packed Day One where $523,000 was awarded for 24 unique 0-day vulnerabilities, Day Two added another $385,750 and 15 unique 0-days, bringing event totals to $908,750 with 39 unique vulnerabilities overall. DEVCORE holds a commanding lead for Master of Pwn with 40.5 points and $405,000, but with one day still to go, anything can happen. Here are the standings as of Day Two but we'll see what the final day of the contest brings. Stay tuned!

We’ll be posting real-time updates and results throughout the competition right here on our blog and across social media. Stay up to date by following us on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, and Bluesky, and join the conversation using #Pwn2Own Berlin and #P2OBerlin for continuous coverage.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Tao Yan & Edouard Bochin of Palo Alto Networks could not get their exploit of Apple Safari – Renderer Only working within the time allotted.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Stephen Fewer of Rapid7 could not get their exploit of Microsoft SharePoint working within the time allotted.

SUCCESS - Ben Koo (@kiddo_pwn) of Team DDOS used a use-after-free bug to escalate privileges on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the second round, earning $10,000 and 1 Master of Pwn point.

SUCCESS - Dialed in! Nikolaos Mourousias (@deltaclock), Caue Obici (@caueobici) & Bruno Halltari (@BrunoModificato) of OtterSec used a Code Injection bug to exploit LM Studio in the second round, earning $20,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points. Full win!

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam) targeting Claude Desktop in the Coding Agent category used a bug that was previously known. They still earn $10,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Le Duc Anh Vu (@vulda17) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) exploited Cursor, earning $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points. Full win!

WITHDRAWAL - Kiyong Kwak of Kakaogames and Song Nuri of Samsung Electronics has withdrawn their entry for Apple Safari – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Ruitong of Abstract Team, University of Colorado Boulder could not get their exploit of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations working within the time allotted.

SUCCESS - Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam) exploited OpenAI Codex in the second round, earning $20,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points.

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, Billy (@st424204), Bruce Chen (@bruce30262), Pan Zhenpeng (@Peterpan980927) & Weiming Shi (@bestswngs) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) targeting NVIDIA Megatron Bridge used a bug that was previously known. They still earn $2,500 and 1 Master of Pwn point.

WITHDRAWAL - Alon Ben Tsur (@iamgweej), Yahav Azran (@_yahav) have withdrawn their entry for Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category.

SUCCESS - Orange Tsai (@orange_8361) of DEVCORE Research Team chained 3 bugs to achieve Remote Code Execution as SYSTEM on Microsoft Exchange, earning $200,000 and 20 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS / COLLISON - David Tae & Louis Hur of Out Of Bounds targeted Ollama, hitting a one-vulnerability collision with a previous attempt and earning $28,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

FAILURE - Nguyen Thanh Dat (@rewhiles) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) could not get their exploit of Mozilla Firefox – Renderer Only working within the time allotted.

SUCCESS - Cyrill Bannwart, Emanuele Barbeno, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller (@compasssecurity) of Compass Security exploited Cursor in the second round, earning $15,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Siyeon Wi used an integer overflow bug to escalate privileges on Microsoft Windows 11 in the fourth round, earning $7,500 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Byung Young Yi (@yibarrack) of Out Of Bounds targeted LiteLLM, hitting a one-vulnerability collision with a previous attempt and earning $17,750 and 3.75 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Confirmed! 0xDACA (@0xDACA) & Noam Trobishi (@NTrobishi) used a use-after-free bug to exploit NV Container Toolkit in the second round, earning $25,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points.

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 - Day One Results

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:55 +0200

Welcome to Day One of Pwn2Own Berlin 2026! Today, 22 entries took the Pwn2Own stage to target AI Databases, Coding Agents, Local Inferences, and a separate category for NVIDIA products, as the world’s top security researchers push technology to its limits. Exploits, surprises, and breakthrough discoveries are unfolding.

After Day One, we awarded $523,000 for 24 unique 0-days! DEVCORE is currently in the lead for Master of Pwn, but a pack of teams are right on their heels. Stay tuned tomorrow for more results and surprises.

Follow the action live! We’ll be posting real-time updates and results throughout the competition on our blog and across social media. Stay up to date by following us on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, and Bluesky, and join the conversation using #Pwn2Own Berlin and #P2OBerlin for continuous coverage.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Le Duc Anh Vu (@vulda17) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) could not get their exploit of OpenAI Codex working within the time allotted.

SUCCESS - Orange Tsai (@orange_8361) of DEVCORE Research Team (@d3vc0r3) chained 4 logic bugs to achieve a sandbox escape on Microsoft Edge, earning $175,000 and 17.5 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - chompie of IBM X-Force Offensive Research (XOR) used a single bug to exploit NV Container Toolkit, earning $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - k3vg3n chained 3 bugs including SSRF and Code Injection to take down LiteLLM. $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points. Full win.

SUCCESS - Satoki Tsuji (@satoki00) of Ikotas Labs, Inc. used an Overly Permissive Allowed List bug to exploit NVIDIA Megatron Bridge, earning $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Park Jae Min could not get their exploit of Oracle Autonomous AI Database working within the time allotted. #Pwn2Own #P2OBerlin

SUCCESS - Emanuele Barbeno, Cyrill Bannwart, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller of Compass Security (@compasssecurity) used a single CWE-150 bug to exploit OpenAI Codex, earning $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Angelboy (@scwuaptx) & TwinkleStar03 (@_twinklestar03) of DEVCORE Research Team used an Improper Access Control bug to escalate privileges on Microsoft Windows 11, earning $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

WITHDRAWAL - Ben Koo (@kiddo_pwn) of Team DDOS has withdrawn their entry for Mozilla Firefox – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Interrupt Labs could not get their exploit of NV Container Toolkit working within the time allotted

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, the Ikotas Labs, Inc. team targeting LiteLLM in the Local Inference category used bugs that were previously known. They still earn $8,000 and 1.75 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Yoseop Kim (@pwning_me) used a CWE-470 bug to exploit NVIDIA Megatron Bridge in the second round, earning $10,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, maitai (@MaitaiThe) of Doyensec (@Doyensec) targeting OpenAI Codex in the Coding Agent category used a bug that was previously known to the vendor. They still earn $10,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

WITHDRAWAL - Yoseop Kim(@pwning_me) has withdrawn their entry for Mozilla Firefox – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category

SUCCESS - haehae (@haehaeYang) of Out Of Bounds chained 2 bugs (CWE-190, CWE-362) to exploit Chroma, earning $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Billy (@st424204), Pan Zhenpeng (@Peterpan980927) & Weiming Shi (@bestswngs) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) chained 5 bugs (incl. SSRF and Code Injection) to exploit LM Studio, earning $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points. Full win!

SUCCESS - Marcin Wiązowski used a heap-based buffer overflow to escalate privileges on Microsoft Windows 11 in the second round, earning $15,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

WITHDRAWAL - Qrious Secure (@qriousec) has withdrawn their entry for LM Studio in the Local Inference category.

SUCCESS - Chompie of IBM X-Force Offensive Research (XOR) used a race condition to escalate privileges on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations, earning $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, Nguyen Thanh Dat (@rewhiles) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeting Anthropic Claude Code in the Coding Agent category used a bug that was previously known to the vendor. They still earn $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

SUCCESS - haehae (@haehaeYang) of Out Of Bounds used a Path Traversal bug to exploit NVIDIA Megatron Bridge in the second round, earning $10,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points. Full win!

SUCCESS - Kentaro Kawane of GMO Cybersecurity by Ierae chained 2 Use-After-Free bugs to escalate privileges on Microsoft Windows 11 in the third round, earning $15,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026: Day Three Results and Master of Pw

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:54 +0200

Following two days of intense competition, Day Three of Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 brought the curtain down on an incredible event. Security researchers delivered their final exploits, pushing enterprise systems to the limit one last time as the race for Master of Pwn came to a close.

Day Three added to an already historic event, bringing the final totals to $1,298,250 awarded for 47 unique 0-day vulnerabilities across three days of competition. DEVCORE claimed the title of Master of Pwn with a commanding 50.5 points and $505,000 — a dominant performance across all three days. STARLabs SG finished in second with 25 points and $242,500, followed by Out Of Bounds in third with 12.75 points and $95,750.

Congratulations to all the researchers who participated, and a special thank you to OffensiveCon for hosting. We'll see you at the next Pwn2Own.

Here are the results of Day Three:

SUCCESS/COLLISION - Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam) used two bugs to exploit Red Hat Linux, but one of the bugs was previously known. He still earns $7,000 and 1.5 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Le Tran Hai Tung (@tacbliw), dungnm (@dungnm_) and hieuvd (@gr4ss341) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) used an integer overflow to escalate privileges on #Windows 11. Their 5th round win nets them $7,500 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Satoki Tsuji (@satoki00) of Ikotas Labs, Inc. abused an external control to exploit OpenAI Codex and pop a host of calcs. He earns $20,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Giuseppe Calì of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam) could not get their exploit of VMware ESXi working within the time allotted.

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, Emanuele Barbeno, Cyrill Bannwart, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller (@compasssecurity) of Compass Security targeted Anthropic Claude Code, hitting a one-vulnerability collision with a previous attempt and earning $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Hyunwoo Kim (@v4bel) chained a use-after-free and uninitialized memory bug to escalate privileges on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the fourth round, earning $5,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - splitline (@splitline) of DEVCORE Research Team chained 2 bugs to exploit Microsoft SharePoint, earning $100,000 and 10 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Nguyen Hoang Thach (@hi_im_d4rkn3ss) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) used a Memory Corruption bug to exploit VMware ESXi with the Cross-tenant Code Execution add-on, earning $200,000 and 20 Master of Pwn points.

COLLISON - While Byung Young Yi (@yibarrack) of Out Of Bounds successfully demonstrated their exploit of Anthropic Claude Code, the bug used had been previously disclosed. They still earn $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

The July 2026 Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:51 +0200

Well folks. Here we are. The bug apocalypse has fully descended upon us. I’ll do my best to sort this out in some way meaningful, but this month’s release shows us the nay-sayers were right, and I’ve got to hand it to the nay-sayers here. Excellent call. Take an extended break from your regularly scheduled activities as we let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for July 2026

Adobe has now moved to a bimonthly release schedule, which means they will be releasing patches on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. I’ll continue to cover the second Tuesday release here and update this blog should the fourth Tuesday release contain anything significant. I think this is a smart way to break up a monster release into something a bit more manageable. Apple has said they are taking a similar approach. We’ll see if other vendors follow their lead.

For the first part of the July release, Adobe released 12 bulletins addressing 88 unique CVEs in Adobe ColdFusion, Commerce, After Effects, Animate, Audition, Bridge, Creative Cloud Desktop Application, Experience Manager, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, and the Content Credentials SDK.

Here’s this month’s overview table:

Bulletin ID	Product	CVE Count	Highest Severity	Highest CVSS	Exploited	Deployment Priority
APSB26-82	Adobe ColdFusion	13	Critical	9.9	No	1
APSB26-73	Adobe Commerce	13	Critical	9.6	No	2
APSB26-78	Adobe After Effects	3	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-83	Adobe Animate	6	Critical	8.6	No	3
APSB26-71	Adobe Audition	6	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-81	Adobe Bridge	6	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-77	Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Application	2	Critical	8.1	No	3
APSB26-74	Adobe Experience Manager	13	Critical	9.6	No	3
APSB26-79	Adobe Illustrator	5	Critical	9.3	No	3
APSB26-72	Adobe Media Encoder	5	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-76	Adobe Premiere Pro	4	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-80	Content Credentials SDK	12	Critical	8.2	No	3
TOTAL	12 bulletins	88

While nothing is under active exploit, I would prioritize the Cold Fusion and Commerce patches first. The patch for Cold Fusion even clocks in with a CVSS 9.9 bug. Beyond that, most of these updates are pretty straightforward. If you’re using these products, patch them. However, you can use you regular patch cadence here.

Microsoft Patches for July 2026

Here it is. The Mother of All Releases. To call this record-breaking is an understatement. How to count this mess is anyone’s guess, but I see new Microsoft 621 CVEs for the month of July. Some of these are in online services where no user action is required. They also list about 480 bugs in Chromium and Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) that I won’t cover here. Here’s how I put this in context. I looked at the last 20 years of Microsoft releases. The CVE count year-to-date exceeds all other years’ totals.

The products covered this month are also astonishing. There are patches for Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Ages of Empire II, and Minecraft Server (really!). That phrase “Windows components” does some pretty heavy lifting here, too, as just about everything you’ve ever heard of is getting patched. All told, there are 63 rated Critical, six rated Moderate, one rated Low, with the rest rated Important in severity. Eight of these bugs were submitted through the ZDI program (more on that later). Two CVEs are listed as under active exploit while one other is listed as publicly known.

So how do we eat this elephant? One byte at a time (pun intended). Let’s start by looking a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs being exploited in the wild.

- CVE-2026-56155 - Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This is one of several AD FS being patched this month, but it’s the only one being actively exploited. It stems from insufficient access-control granularity and does require local access and low privileges to start, but AD FS is exactly the kind of identity infrastructure attackers love to pivot through once they're in. It can also be paired with an RCE as we often see in ransomware. Test and deploy this patch quickly.

- CVE-2026-56164 - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
The other bug being exploited in the wild this month is a modest CVSS 5.3 – but it shows why Moderate severity bugs still matter. It's a missing-authentication flaw, meaning an unauthenticated attacker can hit it over the network with no user interaction required. When something this reachable is being actively abused, patch it now and worry about the score later.

- CVE-2026-57092 - Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This patch rates the highest CVSS score for the month: a solid 9.9. It’s a use-after-free that lets a low-privileged attacker escalate to full host compromise across a VM boundary. We saw something like this demonstrated at Pwn2Own Berlin on ESXi, but it clearly isn’t alone. If you’re using VMSwitch in your Hyper-V deployments (and you likely are), test and deploy this one quickly.

- CVE-2026-50522/58644 - Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This matching pair of CVSS 9.8 bugs results from the deserialization-of-untrusted-data and are reachable without authentication or user interaction. CVE-2026-50522 was demonstrated during Pwn2Own Berlin, so it’s odd to see Microsoft list it as “Exploit Maturity Unknown” since we literally handed them a working exploit. Just another reason to do your own risk assessment and not rely 100% on the vendor. If you have any Internet accessible SharePoint servers, test and deploy this patch quickly.

- CVE-2026-56190 - Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This patch covers an unauthenticated, network-reachable, no user interaction required bug. The root cause is a classic one: use of uninitialized resource (CWE-908), meaning specially crafted RDP traffic can interact with memory that was never properly initialized, letting an attacker corrupt memory and potentially steer code execution. RDP Servers are a common target, so audit your systems to see which are internet accessible and start from there.

- CVE-2026-55008 - Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability
Ignore the title here and treat this like the XSS bug it is. The vulnerability is listed as a CVSS 9.6 since it’s a stored cross-site scripting flaw in Outlook Web Access, with a scope-changed impact that lets it break out of the web app context entirely. An attacker sends a specially crafted email, and if the victim simply opens it in OWA, arbitrary JavaScript executes in their browser session — no attachment needed, no macro warning, just viewing the message does it. If you’re using OWA, test and deploy this one quickly.

- CVE-2026-50518 - Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
There are a couple of these DHCP RCE patches in this release, but the other has caveats while this one does not. Both are heap-based buffer overflows scoring CVSS 9.8, both unauthenticated and network-reachable. If you're running DHCP Server role on anything Internet-adjacent (you're not, right?), these move to the top of the list.

- CVE-2026-56188 - Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Another Critical-rated bug, this one is caused by a race condition. It’s always fun to see a TOCTOU bug rated this high, since race conditions are notoriously finicky to exploit reliably. While it may prove tricky to exploit, this bug could allow an attacker to execute privileged code over the network without user interaction. Don’t let the race condition lull you to sleep on a wormable bug.

- CVE-2026-55010 - Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
File this in the “why not” category. This bug is a heap-based buffer overflow in Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server, also CVSS 9.8 and also unauthenticated RCE. Yes, your kid’s Minecraft server (it is your kid’s server, right?) is exposed to the same class of bug as your DHCP infrastructure. Patch it anyway.

Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for July 2026:

CVE	Title	Severity	CVSS	Public	Exploited	Type
CVE-2026-56155	Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	Yes	EoP
CVE-2026-56164	Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Moderate	5.3	No	Yes	EoP
CVE-2026-50661	Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	6.1	Yes	No	SFB
CVE-2026-54121	Active Directory Certificate Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-45499 **	Azure OpenAI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	9.9	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-48564	DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50370	DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56159	DHCP Server Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50382	DirectX Graphics Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-41106 **	Microsoft 365 Copilot Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	9.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-26145 **	Microsoft Azure Synapse Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	4.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-48561	Microsoft Copilot Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.6	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55011	Microsoft Defender Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55012	Microsoft Defender Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55944	Microsoft Dynamics NAV and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (On Premises) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57100 **	Microsoft Entra Provisioning Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	9.9	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55041	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54998 **	Microsoft Exchange Online Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55008	Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Critical	9.6	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-54992	Microsoft Message Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.4	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50314	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50467	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55018	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55022	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55045	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.4	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55049	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55129	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55056	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55140	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55043	Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55123	Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55120	Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50522	Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58644	Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55040	Microsoft SharePoint Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Critical	9.1	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-54117	Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54118	Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50655	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56189	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57090	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57094	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57087	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57092	Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	9.9	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55033	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55127	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55132	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55010	Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50474	Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49164	Windows Active Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54128	Windows DHCP Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.4	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50518	Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49796	Windows GDI+ Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50380	Windows GDI+ Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.6	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54127	Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	7.4	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50680	Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	8.2	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50327	Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58542	Windows Media Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58608	Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54982	Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54995	Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-42982	Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50392	Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50694	Windows Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56188	Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50444	Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54999	Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Critical	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-47302	.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50525	.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50651	.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-57108	.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50524	.NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50527	.NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50648	.NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50650	.NET Framework Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50646	.NET Framework Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50649	.NET Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-47304	.NET Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50528	.NET Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.2	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50659	.NET Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-50526	.NET Tampering Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-50682	Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-55001	Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50647	Active Directory Federation Server Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50684	Active Directory Federation Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	4.8	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-56170	ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-47300	ASP.NET Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-47303	ASP.NET Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50652	Azure Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50653	Azure Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-57969	Azure CycleCloud Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58279	Azure CycleCloud Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-47632	Azure Monitor Agent Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50338	Azure Spring Apps Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.2	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50488	Clipboard User Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50491	Code Integrity DLL (ci.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50381	Composite Image File System driver (cimfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50427	Content Delivery Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50692	Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58633	Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58634	Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50296	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50375	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50353	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50493	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56643	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56644	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58629	DirectX Graphics Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49174	DNS Client Tampering Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-50495	DNS Client Tampering Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-57088	Extensible Storage Engine (ESENT) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50663	Game: Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-47282	GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-41109	GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50510	GitHub Copilot Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49787	HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50420	HTTP.sys Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-49788	HTTP/2 Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50696	Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-58617	M365 Copilot for iOS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58595	Microsoft Bing App for IOS Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-49162	Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50305	Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50361	Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50466	Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50458	Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50658	Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56178	Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50657	Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Mac Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	4.7	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50329	Microsoft DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58541	Microsoft DWM Core Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58596	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57991	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.4	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58291	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57981	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57984	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57985	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.6	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57986	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57988	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57992	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58276	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56645	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57974	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57975	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58281	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58284	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58285	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58287	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58288	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58289	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	9	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58290	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58292	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58293	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58294	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57983	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.7	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-58295	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.3	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-58525	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.2	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-57987	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58278	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	5.4	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-56646	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-57977	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-57993	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	7.4	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58282	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58283	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58286	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58298	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	7.2	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58524	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	5.4	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58296	Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58297	Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58300	Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58522	Microsoft Edge for Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58299	Microsoft Edge for Android Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58523	Microsoft Edge for Android Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50678	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.6	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54988	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-48580	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50408	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55046	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55138	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55054	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55122	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55898	Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50675	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55899	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55948	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58618	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-47642	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55024	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55025	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55031	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55048	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55029	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55039	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55136	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55141	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55036	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55044	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55037	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55058	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55137	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55053	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55131	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-54131	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55947	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55949	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56156	Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55006	Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55009	Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55005	Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56642	Microsoft Fabric Data Warehouse Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50343	Microsoft Install Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50439	Microsoft Message Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58537	Microsoft NAT Helper Components (ipnathlp.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56193	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55023	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55026	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55027	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55028	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55047	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55035	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55057	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55121	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55042	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55139	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50665	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-56192	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-56195	Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-47290	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50301	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55017	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55125	Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55133	Microsoft OneNote Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58636	Microsoft PC Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50438	Microsoft PC Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58647	Microsoft PowerBI Report Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	8	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55052	Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58277	Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55051	Microsoft SharePoint Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54108	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55016	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	4.6	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55019	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	4.6	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55020	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	4.6	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55021	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55030	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	4.6	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55034	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55126	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55135	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	4.6	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-56157	Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability	Important	5.4	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-47296	Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55002	Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-47295	Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50468	Microsoft SQL Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54116	Microsoft SQL Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-42900	Microsoft Windows App Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49784	Microsoft Windows App Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50356	Microsoft Windows App Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49165	Microsoft Windows App Store Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54993	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58610	Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55050	Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55124	Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55142	Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55032	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55055	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55038	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55134	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55128	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55130	Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50359	Microsoft XML Core Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57097	Microsoft XML Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	6.4	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50346	Netlogon RPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50402	NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50506	OData for ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-45646	OData for ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-54989	Quality Windows Audio/Video Experience (QWAVE) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50365	Remote Access Management service/API (RPC server) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54990	Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58594	Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56190	Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49783	Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-42990	SQL Server ODBC driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	9.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49168	Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-48581	Surface Broker SDMA Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49180	Universal Plug and Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50455	Universal Plug and Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54111	Universal Print Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58543	Universal Print Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58601	Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) Miniport Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulernability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50520	Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.4	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-45496	Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-57101	Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-57102	Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-47305	Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49805	Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50297	Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50325	Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50489	Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57095	Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50416	Win32k Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	3.3	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-56184	Win32k Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50432	Window Virtual Filtering Platform (VFP) Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	5.3	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-54119	Windows Active Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-57976	Windows Active Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50366	Windows Active Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-49178	Windows Active Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58529	Windows Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54983	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50695	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50304	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50368	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50324	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	5.9	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50355	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50411	Windows Active Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-58631	Windows Admin Center (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56196	Windows Admin Center (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56197	Windows Admin Center (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-56169	Windows Admin Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57107	Windows Admin Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56185	Windows Admin Center Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50312	Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	4.7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50462	Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57093	Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-34346	Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-48572	Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-48571	Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50400	Windows App Package Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50331	Windows Application Model Core API Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49803	Windows AppX Deployment Extensions Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50351	Windows Audio Compression Manager (ACM) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50440	Windows Audio Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-34328	Windows Audio Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50406	Windows Backup Engine Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50364	Windows Backup Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-42975	Windows Bluetooth Port Driver Remote Code Execution	Important	8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58538	Windows Bluetooth Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58638	Windows Boot Loader Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	6	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-58637	Windows Client-Side Caching Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50384	Windows Clip Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49183	Windows Clipboard Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50689	Windows Clipboard Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50374	Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58536	Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58613	Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50401	Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50697	Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50667	Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50421	Windows Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50428	Windows Container Isolation FS Filter Driver (unionfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50352	Windows Cryptographic Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50302	Windows Cryptographic Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	4.2	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-55144	Windows Cryptography API: Next Generation (CNG) Tampering Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-50347	Windows Data.dll Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49181	Windows DHCP Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50683	Windows DHCP Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58627	Windows DHCP Server Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50685	Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49807	Windows DirectX Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-49175	Windows DNS Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50487	Windows DNS Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50465	Windows DNS Client Tampering Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-49169	Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50426	Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50424	Windows Domain Controller Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50300	Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50437	Windows DWM Core Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-34348	Windows Event Logging Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50502	Windows Event Logging Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-33842	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-40422	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-41087	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50473	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50442	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50389	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50456	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57084	Windows File Explorer Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57091	Windows File History Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50405	Windows Filtering Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49172	Windows FTP Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50387	Windows GDI Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54122	Windows GDI+ Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.4	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50483	Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58609	Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50391	Windows Group Policy Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50310	Windows Human Interface Device Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	4.7	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50485	Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	4.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-54129	Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50315	Windows Image Acquisition Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58534	Windows Input Method Editor (IME) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50490	Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58540	Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50425	Windows Internal System User Profile Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50293	Windows Internal Task Bar Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49167	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	4.7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49173	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54132	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49795	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49798	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	9.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49808	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50354	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50332	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50377	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50390	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50423	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50397	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50436	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50399	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50459	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50477	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50478	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50484	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50673	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58532	Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50294	Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50316	Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50419	Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	3.3	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50463	Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50475	Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50429	Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	8.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58614	Windows Kernel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-58545	Windows Kernel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-58602	Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50393	Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50396	Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50378	Windows Key Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50303	Windows Key Guard Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-40378	Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-49799	Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50371	Windows LUA File Virtualization Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58544	Windows Management Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50404	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50358	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50336	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50398	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50414	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50379	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50433	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50676	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50677	Windows Media Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-34349	Windows Media Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50394	Windows Media Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50415	Windows Media Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.3	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57083	Windows Media Photo Codec Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54115	Windows Message Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50447	Windows Message Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	9.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50505	Windows Message Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50342	Windows MIDI Service Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56183	Windows MIDI Service Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56187	Windows MIDI Service Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58635	Windows Narrator Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50500	Windows Netlogon Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50476	Windows Network Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50450	Windows Network Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56650	Windows Network File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56649	Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	5.9	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50470	Windows Network Policy Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50496	Windows Network Policy Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-56194	Windows NFS Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56648	Windows NFS Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50337	Windows Notification Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49789	Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50412	Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50422	Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50672	Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56175	Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56182	Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50341	Windows NTFS Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58640	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49184	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.4	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49797	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50308	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50386	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50309	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50313	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50388	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50448	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50471	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50461	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50417	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50482	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50494	Windows NTFS Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50344	Windows OLE Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50686	Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50335	Windows Operating Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50317	Windows Operating Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54987	Windows Overlay Filter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50435	Windows Overlay Filter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50409	Windows Overlay Filter Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-40400	Windows PowerShell Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49166	Windows Print Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55004	Windows Print Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50499	Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50383	Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57085	Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50469	Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50434	Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50339	Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50430	Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50334	Windows Push Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-44800	Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50363	Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50431	Windows Quality of Service (QoS) Packet Scheduler Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50372	Windows Redirected Drive Buffering System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50666	Windows Remote Access Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56647	Windows Remote Access Service Infrastructure Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50330	Windows Remote Desktop Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50376	Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50504	Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58533	Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58535	Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58546	Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58539	Windows Remote Desktop Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-55003	Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57979	Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50445	Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50497	Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-54126	Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-57982	Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50369	Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58626	Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-55014	Windows Remote Help Defense Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50318	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50407	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50357	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50441	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50668	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54109	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49792	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49793	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50362	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50492	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50501	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-58530	Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-49791	Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50451	Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57096	Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50323	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50452	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50348	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50345	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50322	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50340	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50410	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50449	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50460	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50403	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50385	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50413	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50457	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50486	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50503	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54125	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58527	Windows Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50373	Windows Search Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50679	Windows Search Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-44806	Windows Secure Channel Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	5.3	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50681	Windows Secure Channel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-56186	Windows Secure Channel Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	8.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50367	Windows Sensor Data Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58619	Windows Sensor Data Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50311	Windows Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50328	Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Tampering Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-58531	Windows SMB Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54997	Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-49801	Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50690	Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-56168	Windows SMB Server Denial of Service Vulnerability	Important	6.5	No	No	DoS
CVE-2026-50360	Windows SMB Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57089	Windows SMB Server Network Transport Driver (srvnet.sys) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50333	Windows Spaceport.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50298	Windows Spaceport.sys Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49171	Windows Speech Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49170	Windows StateRepository API Server file Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58526	Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50299	Windows Storage Spaces Direct Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-57968	Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-57973	Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) Kernel Tampering Vulnerability	Important	6.3	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-50418	Windows System Secure Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	5.1	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50306	Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50307	Windows TCP/IP Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49177	Windows TCP/IP Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50669	Windows Telephony Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54124	Windows Terminal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	RCE
CVE-2026-50350	Windows Trusted Runtime Interface Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50326	Windows Unified Consent System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49790	Windows Universal Disk Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.3	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50498	Windows Universal Disk Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58547	Windows Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49794	Windows USB Audio Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	4.6	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50453	Windows USB Audio Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.1	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-58528	Windows USB Audio Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Important	6.8	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-50321	Windows USB Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50479	Windows USB Hub Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55000	Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.4	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54991	Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54996	Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49802	Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49806	Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50674	Windows USB Print Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49804	Windows USB Video Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	6.6	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50454	Windows User Interface Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49176	Windows WalletService Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-49800	Windows Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50480	Windows Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56173	Windows WebView Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58632	Windows Win32 Kernel Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54107	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54986	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54112	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-54114	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50670	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50688	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50687	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	8.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-56176	Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-58628	Windows Wireless Network Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-50295	Windows Zero Trust DNS Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability	Important	5.5	No	No	SFB
CVE-2026-50509	Wireless Wide Area Network Service (WwanSvc) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability	Important	7.8	No	No	EoP
CVE-2026-55945	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability	Moderate	4.2	No	No	Info
CVE-2026-45488	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Moderate	5.4	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-45489	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Moderate	6.5	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-55145	Outlook Copilot Tampering Vulnerability	Moderate	6.3	No	No	Tampering
CVE-2026-56181	Windows Network Address Translation (NAT) Spoofing Vulnerability	Moderate	8.3	No	No	Spoofing
CVE-2026-58597	Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability	Low	4.3	No	No	Spoofing

** Indicates this CVEs has already been resolved by Microsoft, and no further action is needed by the end user.

I’ll do my best to summarize everything else in this release, but no promises. I’m only human after all.

Looking at the remaining Critical-rated patches, Office is its own weather system: fourteen Word/Excel/PowerPoint/Office RCEs clustered at CVSS 7.8, plus five Windows Media Foundation RCEs. Outside of the Preview Pane attack vector, they are individually unremarkable; collectively, patch Office and reboot. Always reboot. We’ve already mentioned DHCP some, but DHCP Server can't catch a break. Beyond the one already covered, add CVE-2026-56159, CVE-2026-48564, CVE-2026-50370, and DHCP Client cousin CVE-2026-54128. Five DHCP RCEs in one release. Rounding things out, Print Spooler (CVE-2026-58608), Windows TCP/IP (CVE-2026-54999), and a SQL Server RCE pair (CVE-2026-54117/54118) all receive patches, and all are rated a CVSS 8.8. VE-2026-55944 (Dynamics NAV/Business Central On-Prem RCE, 9.8) is the same deserialization flavor as the SharePoint pair; it’s unauthenticated, network-reachable, and easy to overlook since it's not SharePoint. CVE-2026-48561 (Microsoft Copilot RCE, 9.6) and CVE-2026-50380 (Windows GDI+ RCE, 9.6) round out the near-top tier. Don't forget CVE-2026-55040, a SharePoint Security Feature Bypass (9.1) — patch it in the same pass as the SharePoint RCE pair since it's the same product family. Identity and infrastructure get hit too: CVE-2026-54121 (AD Certificate Services EoP, 8.8) and CVE-2026-50444 (WSUS EoP, 8.8). The obscure Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) takes two RCEs (CVE-2026-54982, CVE-2026-54995), and CVE-2026-50474 gives Remote Desktop Client its own RCE, separate from the RDP one already covered. The rest is a long tail: Defender RCE x2, GDI+ again, Windows Media x2, Secure Kernel Mode EoP x2, and a second Hyper-V EoP. You can consider these “normal” as far as patch cadence goes.

That leaves us with 95 RCE to discuss. I would explain, but there is too much, so let me sum up. CVE-2026-55944 (Dynamics NAV/Business Central On-Prem, 9.8) is the same deserialization flavor as the SharePoint pair: unauthenticated, easy to miss since it's not SharePoint. CVE-2026-54990 (Remote Desktop Client), CVE-2026-49172 (Windows FTP Service), and CVE-2026-50447 (MSMQ) all hit 9.8 too, proof severity labels lag CVSS sometimes. CVE-2026-48561 (Copilot) and CVE-2026-50380 (GDI+) sit at 9.6.

The pattern worth watching: 14 Windows NTFS and 7 ReFS RCEs/ That makes 21 filesystem-driver bugs, an unusually large cluster suggesting a shared root cause. Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) contributes 21 more that are genuinely Microsoft's to patch, not Chromium re-listing noise. Remote Desktop Client racks up a second and third RCE (CVE-2026-50474, CVE-2026-58594), and Windows Admin Center picks up two (CVE-2026-56196/56197) — WAC exposure keeps creeping into these releases. Exchange Server (CVE-2026-55005) and AD Domain Services (CVE-2026-49178) both land at 8.8.

And because this release wouldn't be complete without it: CVE-2026-50663, an RCE in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition. Yes, really. Patch your civilization anyway.

There are close to 260 EoP bugs in this month’s release. Microsoft could have just published the EoPs and still had a record-setting month. As usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. What’s really frustrating is that 94 have no explicit privilege statement at all. Microsoft just says “elevate privileges” with no detail. By my count, that leaves around 25 bugs to consider. Some don’t elevate at all. The FAQ literally says the attacker just gets “the rights of the user running the affected application.” That covers Win32k, Clip Service, Search Service, MSMQ, and SharePoint. A few get a Low-to-Medium integrity bump. There are also a couple that lead to downgraded service accounts or arbitrary file deletion, but nothing else I’ve seen really stands out too much.

There are 20 Security Feature Bypass (SFB) bugs this month, and it's a genuinely mixed bag. CVE-2026-55040 leads at Critical, CVSS 9.1 as it’s weak authentication in SharePoint Server. Patch it in the same pass as the SharePoint RCE pair since it's the same product. The AI-coding-tool trend continues: GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio all land SFB bugs, mostly injection or path-traversal flavored. BitLocker is this month's lone publicly disclosed bug. It’s not exploited yet, but public disclosure is a countdown clock, not a free pass. It requires physical access, as does the bug in Microsoft XML. The firmware/boot cluster is worth a second look: Secure Boot, Boot Loader, and Key Guard all touch the trust chain below the OS. Meaning, despite a low CVSS score, “if this fails, nothing above it can be trusted” stakes. Rounding out the SFB patches, there are two .NET SFBs, two Windows Kernel SFBs, and a DNS/Cryptographic Services bringing up the rear.

The July release includes 31Spoofing bugs this month, and we’ve already covered the most important (Exchange). SharePoint Server accounts for another ten with almost all the same root cause: stored XSS letting an authenticated attacker spoof content in the browser. Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) contributes fifteen more spanning access-control failures, SSRF, type confusion, and UI misrepresentation. All genuinely Microsoft's to patch, not re-listed Chromium noise. The remaining six round out the usual suspects: a Windows NAT spoofing bug reachable from an adjacent network, a Bing app flaw on iOS, a PowerBI Report Server XSS issue, a .NET output-encoding bug, and an AD FS spoofing flaw. None publicly disclosed, none exploited, but with SharePoint's history this year, don't let "just Spoofing" lull you into deprioritizing the patch cycle.

Of 111 Information Disclosure bugs, the overwhelming majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. GitHub Copilot is the standout. Here, the bug insufficiently protected credentials, meaning actual secrets leak, not memory scraps. The Windows Admin Center flaw discloses data via improper authentication. A management console leaking to an unauthorized party is a bigger deal than it sounds. SharePoint uses SSRF to pull data server-side, and the Event Logging Service is a protection-mechanism failure, not a memory bug at all. Edge picks up three genuinely file-system-flavored disclosures — improper authorization, files/directories accessible to external parties, and link-following — plus Edge for Android exposing “private personal information” twice and two path-traversal bugs. The remaining 40+ are mostly one-line “exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor” entries scattered across File Explorer, Push Notifications, Cryptographic Services, and Win32k.

Only 8 Tampering bugs this month, the smallest bucket, but a couple stand out. The top of the list is a WSUS bug, caused by an uncaught exception that lets an unauthenticated attacker tamper with the update service over the network. That’s your patch-management infrastructure itself being the target, which always deserves extra attention. Windows CNG (the crypto API) picks up a missing-cryptographic-step flaw, and Windows DNS Client shows up three separate times across the list, twice for improper access control and once for missing authentication on a critical function. DNS resolution having this many tampering paths in one release is worth flagging as a pattern rather than three unrelated bugs. The one genuinely different entry is Outlook Copilot, described simply as vulnerable to “malicious uses” enabling tampering over the network. That’s a fantastically vague phrasing for an AI-assistant feature, continuing this year's running theme of Copilot-branded features showing up somewhere in every release. Finally, a .NET link-following bug and a WSL2 kernel race condition receive patches. Both require local/authorized access to trigger.

Still with me? Good, because we have 35 DoS bugs to cover, and this is really an identity-infrastructure story more than a grab-bag. Active Directory Federation Services alone accounts for seven of them, all sitting at CVSS 7.5, all stack-based buffer overflows or infinite loops that let an unauthenticated attacker knock the service over the network. The .NET ecosystem is the other big cluster: .NET, .NET Framework, and ASP.NET Core/OData contribute nine bugs combined, almost all “allocation of resources without limits or throttling”. HTTP.sys and HTTP/2 pick up the same flavor. LSASS shows up twice, which is always worth a second look given what that process actually holds. Rounding out the list are patches for Windows DHCP Server, SMB Server, Secure Channel, Hyper-V, and IKE Protocol each take a single hit, mostly requiring authorized or adjacent-network access rather than being wide open to the internet.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

The next Patch Tuesday will be on August 11, just after Hacker Summer Camp in sunny Las Vegas. Should I survive the heat, I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts on the release – no matter how large it may be. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

CVE-2025-6978: Arbitrary Code Execution in the Arista NG Firewall

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:44 +0200

In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Jonathan Lein and Simon Humbert of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched command injection vulnerability in the Arista NG Firewall. This bug was originally discovered by Gereon Huppertz and reported through the TrendAI Zero Day Initiative (ZDI) program. Successful exploitation could result in arbitrary command execution under the security context of the root user. The following is a portion of their write-up covering CVE-2025-6798, with a few minimal modifications.

A command injection vulnerability has been reported in Arista NG Firewall. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of user data in the diagnostics component.

A remote, authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted requests to the target server. Successful exploitation could result in arbitrary command execution under the security context of the root user.

The Vulnerability

Arista NG Firewall is an open-source firewall appliance. It was originally developed under the name Untangle. Some features of Arista Firewall include spam blocking, bandwidth control, and IPS, etc. NG Firewall can be managed through a web user interface, or a JSON-RPC API using HTTP.

HTTP is a request/response protocol described in RFCs 7230 - 7237 and other RFCs. A request is sent by a client to a server, which in turn sends a response back to the client. An HTTP request consists of a request line, various headers, an empty line, and an optional message body

where CRLF represents the new line sequence Carriage Return (CR) followed by Line Feed (LF). SP represents a space character. Parameters can be passed from the client to the server as name-value pairs in either the Request-URI, or in the message-body, depending on the Method used and Content-Type header. For example, a simple HTTP request passing a parameter named “param” with value “1”, using the GET method might look like:

A corresponding HTTP request using the POST method might look like:

If there is more than one parameter/value pair, they are encoded as '&'-delimited name=value pairs:

var1=value1&var2=value2&var3=value3...

The component relevant to this report is the JSON-RPC endpoint. A JSON object has the following syntax:

•            An object is enclosed in curly braces {}.
•            An object consists of zero or more items delimited by a comma (",") character.
•            An item consists of a key and a value. A key is delimited from its value by a colon (":") character.
•            A key must be a string (enclosed in quotes).
•            A value must be a valid type. Valid types include string, number, JSON object, array, Boolean, or null.
•            An array is an object enclosed in square braces []. An array consists of zero or more string, number, JSON object, array, Boolean or null type-objects delimited by a comma (",") character.

An example JSON object is as follows:

The following is an example of a JSON-RPC request to the runTroubleshooting() method that is relevant to this report:

A command injection vulnerability has been reported in Arista NG Firewall. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of user data that is used in a command line. The runTroubleshooting() method of the class NetworkManagerImpl will be used to handle JSON-RPC requests to the runTroubleshooting method. The command parameter passed to the method will be the first element in the params JSON array in the body of the request. This value must be one of the strings in the TroubleshootingCommands enum defined in the NetworkManager class. The second parameter of the method will contain additional arguments passed to the JSON-RPC call.

The method will first iterate through each of the additional arguments and combine each key value pair into a single string, separated by a "=" character that will later be used as an environment variable. Next, a switch case statement is used to ensure the provided command is one of the values in TroubleshootingCommands. Each command value will be processed using the same code.

The method will next iterate through each environment variable, and inspect it for the following common command injection strings:

; & | > $(

If any are found, the request will be rejected, and an exception is thrown. If each environment variable is valid, the method execEvil() is called to create and execute a command line for the network-troubleshooting.sh script, with the environment variables passed as a parameter. The execEvil() method in turn will call Runtime.getRuntime().exec() to run the script, with the second parameter passing the environment variables that will be used by the script. Each command value will have a function in network-troubleshooting.sh, such as run_dns() for the “DNS” command value. Each function will follow a similar structure, by creating a CMD string using the environment variables passed by exec() and then calling eval to execute it.

However, the values of the parameters passed to the runTroubleshooting JSON-RPC method are not completely sanitized before it is used in the command line. While the parameters passed to the endpoint are inspected for some shell metacharacters, the list is incomplete. For example, the backtick character (`) is not included in the check and may be used to inject a command.

For example:

The example above will write and execute a python script on the server to achieve code execution without using any restricted characters.

A remote, authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a JSON-RPC request to the runTroubleshooting method containing a crafted “HOST” or “URL” parameter containing shell metacharacters not present in the runTroubleshooting() check. Successful exploitation in the worst case will result in arbitrary command execution under the security context of the root user.

Detection Guidance

To detect an attack exploiting this vulnerability, the detection device must monitor and parse traffic on the following ports:
- HTTP, over port 80/TCP
- HTTPS, over port 443/TCP

Traffic to Arista NG Firewall may be encrypted and must be decrypted prior to applying this guidance.

The detection device must search for HTTP POST requests made to the request-URI /admin/JSON-RPC. If found, the body of the request must be parsed as JSON. The JSON object in the body must be inspected for a method key, and its value must be inspected to contain the substring runTroubleshooting. If found, the object must also be inspected for the JSON key "params", with a value containing a JSON array. The first entry in the JSON array must be inspected for any of the following strings:

If found, the second entry in the array must be inspected for a JSON object, and inspected for any of the following keys:

If either is found, the corresponding value to the key must be inspected for any of the following command injection characters:

If found, the traffic should be treated as suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.

The following regular expression can be applied to find malicious requests:

/\x22(HOST|URL)\x22\s*:\s*\x22(?:[^\x22\\]|\\.)*?[\x60\x27\x24\x3c]/

Notes:

• String matching on the request-URI and all JSON strings should be done in a case sensitive manner.
• The JSON strings may be encoded and must be decoded prior to applying this guidance.
• The request-URI may be URL-encoded and must be decoded before applying this guidance.

Conclusion

This vulnerability has been addressed by Arista with their Security Advisory 0123. They note that the Arista Edge Threat Management - Arista Next Generation Firewall (Formerly Untangle) is affected by this bug, but other product versions are not. They also state the following mitigation can be applied:

Do not allow non-authorized administrative access or access to the administrative browser.

However, the more appropriate action is to apply the provided vendor security patch by upgrading to version 17.4 or higher.

Special thanks to Jonathan Lein and Simon Humbert of the TrendAI Research team for providing such a thorough analysis of this vulnerability. For an overview of TrendAI Research services, please visit https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html.

The threat research team will be back with other great vulnerability analysis reports in the future. Until then, follow the team on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, or Bluesky for the latest in exploit techniques and security patches.

Sovereign AI has become the public-sector CIO’s control problem

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:57:42 +0200

In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.

They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?

The 5 layers of public-sector control

For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:

Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.
Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.
Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.
Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.
Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.

Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is. Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.

The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.

The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.

Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.

Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.

None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.

Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:

Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?
Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?
Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?
Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?
Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?
Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Dinos with swords, making music with gnomes and other new indie games worth checking out

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:04:00 +0200

Plus, email as turn-based combat (which is really just regular email).

Build native Android apps in Google AI Studio

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:46 +0200

Posted by Emma-Louise Leavey, Group Product Manager and Mike Taylor-Cai, Product Manager

Starting today Google AI Studio can build entire Android apps for you in minutes from just a prompt. You don't need to install any software or configure any libraries, which significantly lowers the barrier to development. Whether you’re a seasoned developer looking to prototype at lightning speed or a creator building your first-ever mobile experience, you can now go from a single prompt to a high-quality, Kotlin-based Android app in AI Studio. You can easily install the app on your device, share it with others for testing, or send it to Android Studio for any further development.

The power of native Android

While AI has made it easy to generate web-based apps, people want more on their mobile devices. They expect the beautiful and usable modern app design and capabilities that come with native Android user experiences, built with the Kotlin programming language using Jetpack Compose, the official and recommended toolkit for Android development. Native Android apps bring the reliability of offline support, continuous background services, and the deep integration of hardware sensors like GPS, Bluetooth, and NFC. We've brought the technology that enables you to quickly create new projects with Gemini in Android Studio directly into the web-based AI Studio. Now, you get the best of both worlds: the ease of a prompt-based interface paired with the power of the Android SDK, all in your browser, no installation required.

A seamless, end-to-end workflow

We have streamlined the entire development lifecycle so you can focus on your idea:

1. Create your app and iterate in the cloud: Use the embedded Android Emulator directly in your browser to preview and interact with your app as it’s being built. No heavy SDKs to download, no local setup required.

Use the embedded Android Emulator to create and edit Android Apps right in the web browser

2. Install instantly: Connect your Android phone using a USB cable and install your app directly from AI Studio using the integrated Android Debug Bridge (adb).

Install the app on your Android device

3. Streamlined Publish to Google Play: Using your Google Play developer account, you can now publish your app directly from AI Studio for testing. AI Studio will automatically create your app record, package the bundle, and upload it to an internal testing track in Google Play Developer Console. Your app is available for you to install within minutes, and you can automatically update your app on your device as you develop it further in AI Studio.

Publish the app to an internal test track in Google Play

Seamless app development handoff

As you iterate on your app in AI Studio, you may find you need more advanced Android tools or support for a wider variety of Android device types. To move beyond the browser, you can seamlessly hand off your project to Android Studio by downloading a ZIP file or exporting it directly to GitHub.

Download zip file of Android app project files

When transitioning to a team environment or local development, you can leverage any IDE or agent you prefer. For a specialized experience, we recommend Gemini in Android Studio, which features models designed with Android in mind, or Antigravity, which integrates Android CLI commands into Google’s agentic development platform. This workflow makes building high-quality apps more accessible while giving you total flexibility in how you use AI to scale your project.

Start building today

To ensure a safe, high-quality ecosystem from day one, we have focused our initial release on specific capabilities including:

Personal utilities and simple social apps: You can rapidly prototype single or multi-screen apps, such as habit trackers, study quizzes, or event itineraries.
Hardware-enabled experiences: Because you are building native apps, you can leverage device features like the Camera, GPS/Location, Accelerometer and Bluetooth using the native Android APIs, letting you optimize hardware-level performance.
AI-powered experiences: You can create apps that feature Gemini API integrations, seamlessly embedding powerful AI capabilities directly into your mobile experience.

What’s Next?

We are moving fast to expand what’s possible for creators in AI Studio. Here is a sneak peek at what is coming soon:

Managing Google Play Test Tracks: Coming soon, we will be adding the ability to invite testers to try your app directly from AI Studio.
Firebase integrations: Out-of-the-box support for Firestore, Firebase Auth, Firebase App Check and other tooling critical for Android developers is coming soon.

Head over to Google AI Studio right now to start building. Here is some inspiration to get you started…

Turn your Google Pixel Watch into an aviation assistant

Prompt:

Build a small airplane "6-pack" instrument app for Google Pixel Watch. The 6 instruments should include attitude indicator, airspeed indicator, altimeter, turn coordinator, vertical speed indicator, and heading indicator. Use the Google Pixel Watch's sensors to power the instruments and display them clearly. Display one instrument at a time on the display. Swiping to the left or right should cycle through the instruments.

Interactive Harmonium app on Google Pixel Fold
Prompt: Build a Harmonium app for Pixel Fold devices, which plays like the instrument based on the hinge angle and touch gestures. The app should simulate the bellows and reeds accurately.

An Android app for guitarists to become better musicians by jamming to backing tracks

Prompt:

Build an Android guitar practice companion app that features a two-tab navigation system: 'Fretboard' and 'Library'.

The 'Fretboard' primary screen must contain an interactive guitar neck UI that visually maps out user-selected root notes, musical scales, and chords. Above the fretboard, implement a WebView-based YouTube player configured to play embedded videos inline. Additionally, include an AI generation feature that uses Retrofit to call Gemini Lyria 3 to create custom, 30-second backing tracks based on the user's currently selected key and scale. The generated audio files and their metadata must be saved locally using a database and displayed as a list in the 'Library' tab, where users can delete or play them.

Finally, implement a persistent, globally visible mini audio player at the bottom of the screen, complete with play/pause toggles, a progress slider for seeking, and timestamp text, allowing the user to seamlessly practice on the fretboard tab while listening to their tracks.

We are looking forward to seeing what you build next!

Explore this announcement and all Google I/O 2026 updates on io.google.

Android Studio Quail 2 is Stable: Multi-task with the Android Studio AI agent

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:29 +0200

Posted by Amman Asfaw, Product Manager, Android Studio

Android Studio Quail 2 is now stable and ready for you to use in production, bringing a shift to your IDE with concurrent agentic workflows, natively integrated memory leak profiling, and context-aware crash remediation. Whether you are performing a sweeping architectural overhaul, tracing a memory leak, or resolving a critical production crash, Android Studio keeps you anchored in your workspace by reducing manual friction.

Here’s a deep dive into what’s new:

Multi-tasking with parallel chats

In Android Studio Quail 2, we've been hard at work redesigning Agent Mode from the ground up. This new architecture provides better performance, offers more flexibility for decomposing complex tasks, and improves the suite of internal tools the agent uses to do its work.

In addition to these behind-the-scenes improvements, these changes also allow you to converse across multiple agent chats simultaneously. Waiting for the Android Studio agent to finish a task before you can ask another question or initiate a separate task in Agent Mode is a bottleneck of the past. You can multi-task seamlessly: kick off a UI refactor in one tab, fix a ProGuard rule in a second, and generate documentation in a third.

You can also change which models the agent uses from chat to chat based on the requests you have. Take a look at Android Bench for an analysis of how LLMs perform Android development tasks.

How to use: Click the "+" icon to start a new parallel conversation, and use the History icon to navigate between active tasks. Alternatively, select File > New > New Agent Tab to open a conversation in a dedicated tab.
Note: Worktree support is currently unavailable. Exercise caution when running concurrent chats that modify the same project files, which can potentially lead to editor conflicts.

Run multiple agent tasks in parallel with different models of your choice.

Use the History icon to navigate between active tasks.

Memory leak detection with LeakCanary

Memory leaks in Android occur when your code holds onto an object's reference long after its life cycle has ended. This prevents the Garbage Collector from reclaiming that memory, eventually leading to sluggish performance or OutOfMemoryError.

Hunting down memory leaks can be a tedious, manual task. Starting with Android Studio Quail 2, the popular open-source leak detector LeakCanary is natively integrated directly into the Profiler as a dedicated, first-class task.

This integration transforms your debugging performance by lifting and shifting the heap analysis off your resource-constrained testing phone, and onto your powerful development computer. By running the analysis on your computer, leak tracing is up to five times faster and jank-free, leaving your test app running smoothly on the device.

Once a leak is detected during a profiling session:

The Profiler renders an interactive, color-coded leak trace, grouping occurrences and estimating lost memory.
You can click Go to declaration on any leaking object in the trace to instantly jump to that exact line of code in your editor.
You can click Fix with Agent to have the Gemini agent ingest the trace, explain the root cause of the retained reference, and write the exact code change (such as unbinding a listener or clearing a static reference) to plug the leak.

Review memory leaks identified via LeakCanary through the Fix with Agent button.

App Quality Insights agent integration

Tracking down the root cause of an app crash can require manually synthesizing stack traces, device data, and source code. However Android Studio’s App Quality Insights (AQI) is now fully integrated with Agent Mode to do the heavy lifting for you.

When you click on a crash in the AQI panel, you immediately get a concise, high-level summary of the issue. If you need to dig deeper, simply click See more. This opens a dedicated chat where the agent uses your selected model and pulls in local source code and the full stack trace to deliver a comprehensive explanation of the failure.

With the new agent integration, you move directly from issue identification to resolution. By clicking Fix with AI, the agent will analyze the issue, propose a step-by-step fix plan, and—upon your approval—apply the necessary code changes directly to your project and verify the resulting fix

The Fix with AI button triggering the agent to analyze the issue, then propose the fix

Quality & stability improvements

Beyond new features, we’ve continued our focus on quality by addressing numerous bugs and incorporating the latest stability and performance improvements from the IntelliJ platform, making this a significant enhancement for your daily development.

Get Started

Ready to dive in and accelerate your development? Download Android Studio Quail 2 and start exploring these new features today! As always, your feedback is crucial to us. Check known issues, report bugs, and be part of our vibrant community on LinkedIn, Medium, YouTube, or X.

Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:15:46 +0200

Summary

Note: This joint Cybersecurity Advisory is being published as an addition to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) May 6, 2025, joint fact sheet Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology and European Cybercrime Centre’s (EC3) Operation Eastwood, in which CISA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EC3 shared information about cyber incidents affecting the operational technology (OT) and industrial control systems (ICS) of critical infrastructure entities in the United States and globally.

FBI, CISA, National Security Agency (NSA), and the following partners—hereafter referred to as “the authoring organizations”—are releasing this joint advisory on the targeting of critical infrastructure by pro-Russia hacktivists:

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
U.S. Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
Europol European Cybercrime Centre (EC3)
EUROJUST – European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
Czech Republic Military Intelligence (VZ)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)
Czech Republic National Centre Against Terrorism, Extremism, and Cyber Crime (NCTEKK)
French National Cybercrime Unit – Gendarmerie Nationale (UNC)
French National Jurisdiction for the Fight Against Organized Crime (JUNALCO)
German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI)
Italian State Police (PS)
Latvian State Police (VP)
Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau (LKPB)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
Romanian National Police (PR)
Spanish Civil Guard (GC)
Spanish National Police (CNP)
Swedish Polisen (SC3)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)

The authoring organizations assess pro-Russia hacktivist groups are conducting less sophisticated, lower-impact attacks against critical infrastructure entities, compared to advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. These attacks use minimally secured, internet-facing virtual network computing (VNC) connections to infiltrate (or gain access to) OT control devices within critical infrastructure systems. Pro-Russia hacktivist groups—Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR), Z-Pentest, NoName057(16), Sector16, and affiliated groups—are capitalizing on the widespread prevalence of accessible VNC devices to execute attacks against critical infrastructure entities, resulting in varying degrees of impact, including physical damage. Targeted sectors include Water and Wastewater Systems, Food and Agriculture, and Energy.

The authoring organizations encourage critical infrastructure organizations to implement the recommendations in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the likelihood and impact of pro-Russia hacktivist-related incidents. For additional information on Russian state-sponsored malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Russia Threat Overview and Advisories webpage.

Download the PDF version of this report:

Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure (PDF, 1.53 MB )

Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

Over the past several years, the authoring organizations have observed pro-Russia hacktivist groups conducting cyber operations against numerous organizations and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide. The escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022 significantly increased the number of these pro-Russia groups. Consisting of individuals who support Russia’s agenda but lack direct governmental ties, most of these groups target Ukrainian and allied infrastructure. However, among the increasing number of groups, some appear to have associations with the Russian state through direct or indirect support.

Cyber Army of Russia Reborn

The authoring organizations assess that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455—tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups)—is likely responsible for supporting the creation of CARR —also known as “The People’s Cyber Army of Russia”—in late February or early March of 2022. Actors suspected to be from GRU unit 74455 likely funded the tools CARR threat actors used to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks through at least September 2024.

In April 2022, the group began using a new Telegram channel featuring the name “CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn” to organize and plan group actions. The channel creators recruited actors to use CARR as an unattributable platform for conducting cyber activities beneath the level of an APT, aimed at deterring anti-Russia rhetoric. CARR threat actors presented themselves as a group of pro-Russia hacktivists supporting Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian conflict, and they soon began claiming responsibility for DDoS attacks against the U.S. and Europe for supporting Ukraine.

CARR documented these actions through embellished images and videos shared on their social media channels, promoting Russian ideology, disseminating talking points, and publicizing leaked information from hacks attributed to Russian state threat actors.

In late 2023, CARR expanded their operations to include attacks on industrial control systems (ICS), claiming an intrusion against a European wastewater treatment facility in October 2023. In November 2023, CARR targeted human-machine interface (HMI) devices, claiming intrusions at two U.S. dairy farms.

The authoring organizations assess that by late September 2024, CARR channel administrators became dissatisfied with the level of support and funding provided by the GRU. This dissatisfaction led CARR administrators and an administrator from another hacktivist group, NoName057(16), to create the Z-Pentest group, employing the same tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) as CARR but separate from GRU involvement.

NoName057(16)

The authoring organizations assess that the Center for the Study and Network Monitoring of the Youth Environment (CISM), established on behalf of the Kremlin, created NoName057(16) as a covert project within the organization. Senior executives and employees within CISM developed and customized the NoName057(16) proprietary DDoS tool DDoSia, paid for the group’s network infrastructure, served as administrators on NoName057(16) Telegram channels, and selected DDoS targets.

Active since March 2022, NoName057(16) has conducted frequent DDoS attacks against government and private sector entities in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and other European countries perceived as hostile to Russian geopolitical interests. The group operates primarily through Telegram channels and used GitHub, alongside various websites and repositories, to host DDoSia and share materials and TTPs with their followers.

In 2024, NoName057(16) began collaborating closely with other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, operating a joint chat with CARR by mid-2024. In July 2024, NoName057(16) jointly claimed responsibility with CARR for an alleged intrusion against OT assets in the U.S. The high degree of cooperation with CARR likely contributed to the formation of Z-Pentest, which is composed of actors and administrators from both teams, in September 2024.

Z-Pentest

Established in September 2024, Z-Pentest is composed of members from CARR and NoName057(16). The group specializes in OT intrusion operations targeting globally dispersed critical infrastructure entities. Additionally, the group uses “hack and leak” operations and defacement attacks to draw attention to their pro-Russia messaging. Unlike other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, Z-Pentest largely avoids DDoS activities, claiming OT intrusions as attempts to garner more attention from the media.

Shortly after Z-Pentest’s inception, the group announced alliances with CARR and NoName057(16), possibly to leverage the other groups’ subscribers to grow the new channel. In March 2025, Z-Pentest posted evidence claiming OT device intrusions to their channel using a NoName057(16) cyberattack campaign hashtag. Similarly, in April 2025, Z-Pentest shared a video purporting defacement of an HMI by changing system names to NoName057(16) and CARR references. Z-Pentest continues to create new alliances with other groups, like Sector16, to continue growing their subscriber base and incidentally propagate TTPs with new partners.

Sector16

Formed in January 2025, Sector16 is a novice pro-Russia hacktivist group that emerged through collaboration with Z-Pentest. Sector16 actively maintains an online presence, including a public Telegram channel where they share videos, statements, and claims of compromising U.S. energy infrastructure. These communications often align with pro-Russia narratives and reflect their self-proclaimed support for Russian geopolitical objectives.

Members of Sector16 may have received indirect support from the Russian government in exchange for conducting specific cyber operations that further Russian strategic goals. This aligns with broader Russian cyber strategies that involve leveraging non-state threat actors for certain cyber activities, adding a layer of deniability.

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 18. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

TTP Overview

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups employ easily disseminated and replicated TTPs across various entities, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption and escalating the frequency of intrusions. These groups have limited capabilities, frequently misunderstanding the processes they aim to disrupt. Their apparent low level of technical knowledge results in haphazard attacks where actors intend to cause physical damage but cannot accurately anticipate actual impact. Despite these limitations, the authoring organizations have observed these groups willfully cause actual harm to vulnerable critical infrastructure.

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups use the TTPs in this Cybersecurity Advisory to target virtual network computing (VNC)-connected HMI devices. These groups are primarily seeking notoriety with their actions. While they have caused damage in some instances, they regularly make false or exaggerated claims about their attacks on critical infrastructure to garner more attention. They frequently misrepresent their capabilities and the impacts of their actions, portraying minor incursions as significant breaches, but such incursions can still lead to lost time and resources for operators remediating systems.

Additionally, pro-Russia hacktivists use an opportunistic targeting methodology. They leverage superficial criteria, such as victim availability and existing vulnerabilities, rather than focusing on strategically significant entities. Their lack of strategic focus can lead to a broad array of targets, ranging from water treatment facilities to oil well systems. Pro-Russia hacktivists have demonstrated a pattern of frequently taking advantage of the widespread availability of vulnerable VNC connections. While system owners typically use VNC connections for legitimate remote system access functions, threat actors can maliciously use these connections to broadly target numerous platforms and services. Consequently, these groups can indiscriminately compromise critical infrastructure entities, including those in the Water and Wastewater, Food and Agriculture, and Energy Sectors.

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups have successfully targeted supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks using basic methods, and in some cases, performed simultaneous DDoS attacks against targeted networks to facilitate SCADA intrusions. As recently as April 2025, threat actors used the following unsophisticated TTPs to access networks and conduct SCADA intrusions:

Scan for vulnerable devices on the internet [T0883] with open VNC ports [T1595.002].
Initiate temporary virtual private server (VPS) [T1583.003] to execute password brute force software.
Use VNC software to access hosts [T1021.005].
Confirm connection to the vulnerable device [T0886].
Brute force the password, if required [T1110.003].
Gain access to HMI devices [T0883], typically with default [T0812], weak, or no passwords [T0859].
Log the confirmed vulnerable device IP address, port, and password.
Using the HMI graphical interface [T0823], capture screen recordings or intermittent screenshots while conducting the following actions, intending to affect productivity and cause additional costs [T0828]:
- Modify usernames/passwords [T0892];
- Modify parameters [T0836];
- Modify device name [T0892];
- Modify instrument settings [T0831];
- Disable alarms [T0878];
- Create loss of view (a technique that mandates local hands-on operator intervention) [T0829]; and/or
- Device restart or shutdown [T0816].
Disconnect from the device, ending the VNC connection.
Research the compromised device company after the intrusion [T1591].

Propagation

To reach a wider audience, pro-Russia hacktivist groups work together, amplify each other’s posts, create additional groups to amplify their own posts, and likely share TTPs. For example, Z-Pentest jointly claimed intrusion of a U.S. system with Sector16. Sector16 later began posting additional intrusions for which the group claimed sole responsibility. It is likely that these and similar groups will continue to iterate and share these methods to disrupt critical infrastructure organizations.

Reconnaissance and Initial Access

The threat actors’ intrusion methodology is relatively unsophisticated, inexpensive to execute, and easy to replicate. These pro-Russia hacktivist groups abuse popular internet-scraping tools, such as Nmap or OPENVAS, to search for visible VNC services and use brute force password spraying tools to access devices via known default or otherwise weak credentials. Threat actors typically search for these services on the default port 5900 or other nearby ports (5901-5910). Their goal is to gain remote access to HMI devices connected to live control networks.

Once threat actors obtain access, they manipulate available settings from the graphical user interface (GUI) on the HMI devices, such as arbitrary physical parameter and setpoint changes, or conduct defacement activities. Because pro-Russia hacktivist groups seem to lack sector-specific expertise or cyber-physical engineering knowledge, they currently cannot reliably estimate the true impact of their actions. Regardless of outcome, pro-Russia hacktivist groups often post images and screen recordings to their social media platforms, boasting the compromises and exaggerating impacts to garner attention from their peers and the media.

Impact

While pro-Russia hacktivist groups currently demonstrate limited ability to consistently cause significant impact, there is a risk that their continued attacks will result in further harm or grievous physical consequences. Attacks have not yet caused injury; however, the attacks against occupied factories and community facilities demonstrate a lack of consideration for human safety.

Victim organizations reported that the most common operational impact caused by these threat actors is a temporary loss of view, necessitating manual intervention to manage processes. However, any modifications to programmatic and systematic procedures can result in damage or disruption, including substantial labor costs from hiring a programmable logic controller programmer to restore operations, costs associated with operational downtime, and potential costs for network remediation.

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 1 to Table 10 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

*Table 1. Reconnaissance*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Gather Victim Organization Information	T1591	Threat actors use information available on the internet to determine what systems they believe they have compromised and post the information on their social media. This methodology frequently leads to the threat actors misidentifying their claimed victims.
Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning	T1595.002	Threat actors use open source tools to look for IP addresses in target countries with visible VNC services on common ports.

*Table 2. Resource Development*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server	T1583.003	Threat actors use virtual infrastructure to obfuscate identifiers.

*Table 3. Initial Access*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Internet Accessible Device	T0883	Threat actors gain access through less secure HMI devices exposed to the internet.

*Table 4. Persistence*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Valid Accounts	T0859	Threat actors use password guessing tools to access legitimate accounts on the HMI devices.

*Table 5. Credential Access*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Brute Force: Password Spraying	T1110.003	Threat actors use tools to rapidly guess common or simple passwords.

*Table 6. Lateral Movement*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Default Credentials	T0812	Threat actors seek and build libraries of known default passwords for control devices to access legitimate user accounts.
Remote Services	T0886	Threat actors leverage VNC services to access system HMI devices.
Remote Services: VNC	T1021.005	Threat actors hunt VNC-enabled devices visible on the internet and connect with remote viewer software.

*Table 7. Execution*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Graphical User Interface	T0823	Threat actors interact with HMI devices via GUIs, attempting to modify control devices.

*Table 8. Inhibit Response Function*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Device Restart/Shutdown	T0816	While threat actors claim to turn off HMIs, it is possible that operators (not the threat actors) turn the devices off during incident response.
Alarm Suppression	T0878	Threat actors use HMI interfaces to clear alarms caused by their activity and alarms already present on the system at the time of their intrusion.
Change Credential	T0892	Threat actors change the usernames and passwords of HMI devices in operator lockout attempts, usually resulting in a loss of view and operators switching to manual operations.

*Table 9. Impair Process Control*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Modify Parameter	T0836	Threat actors attempt to change upper and lower limits of operational devices as available from the HMI.
Unauthorized Command Message	T0855	Threat actors attempt to send unauthorized command messages to instruct control system assets to perform actions outside of their intended functionality, causing possible impact.

*Table 10. Impact*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Loss of Productivity and Revenue	T0828	Threat actors purposefully attempt to impact productivity and create additional costs for the affected entities.
Loss of View	T0829	Threat actors change credentials on HMI devices, preventing operators from modifying processes remotely.
Manipulation of Control	T0831	Threat actors change setpoints in processes, impacting the efficiency of operations for those specific processes.

Incident Response

If organizations find exposed systems with weak or default passwords, they should assume threat actors compromised the system and begin the following incident response protocols:

Determine which hosts were compromised and isolate them by quarantining or taking them offline.
Initiate threat hunting activities to scope the intrusion. Collect and review artifacts, such as running processes/services, unusual authentications, and recent network connections.
Reimage compromised hosts.
Provision new account credentials.
Report the compromise to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA. See the Contact Information section of this advisory.
Harden the network to prevent additional malicious activity. See the Mitigations section of this advisory for guidance.

Mitigations

OT Asset Owners and Operators

The authoring organizations recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture based on the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.

Reduce exposure of OT assets to the public-facing internet. When connected to the internet, OT devices are easy targets for malicious cyber threat actors. Many devices can be found by searching for open ports on public IP ranges with search engine tools to target victims with OT components [CPG 3.S].
- Asset owners should use attack surface management services and web-based search platforms to scan the internet. This mitigation can help identify if there are VNC systems exposed within the IP ranges they own, especially for connections set up by third parties.
  Note: For more information on attack surface management, see CISA’s Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance, CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services for U.S. critical infrastructure, and NSA’s Attack Surface Management for the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.
- Implement network segmentation between IT and OT networks. Segmenting critical systems and introducing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) for passing control data to enterprise logistics reduces the potential impact of cyber threats and the risk of disruptions to essential OT operations [CPG 3.I].
- Consider implementing a firewall and/or virtual private network if exposure to the internet is necessary for controlling access to devices.
  - Consider disabling public exposure by default and implementing time-limited remote access to reduce the amount of time systems are exposed.
  - Restrict and monitor both inbound and outbound traffic at OT perimeter firewalls. Configure OT perimeter firewalls to enforce a default-deny policy for all traffic. Asset owners should explicitly permit authorized destinations and protocols based on operational requirements.
  - Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration or command-and-control callbacks.
  - Regularly audit firewall rulesets and monitor outbound traffic patterns for anomalies indicative of threat actor activity, such as beaconing or unexpected protocol usage.
Adopt mature asset management processes, including mapping data flows and access points. Generating a complete picture of both OT and IT assets provides visibility to operators and management, allowing organizations to monitor and assess deviations for criticality [CPG 2.A].
- Keep remote access services updated with the latest version available and ensure all systems and software are up to date with patches and necessary security updates.
  - Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.
- Refer to the joint Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators to help with reducing cybersecurity risk by identifying which assets within their environment should be secured and protected.
Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.
- Many devices lack robust authentication and authorization. Devices with weak authentication are vulnerable targets to threat actors using credential theft techniques.
- Implement MFA where possible. Where MFA is not feasible, use strong, unique passwords. Apply password standards for operator-accessible services on underlying OT assets, as well as network devices protecting those services. This is especially important for services that require internet accessibility [CPG 3.A] [CPG 3.B] [CPG 3.C] [CPG 3.F].
- Establish an allowlist that permits only authorized device IP addresses and/or media access control addresses. The allowlist can be refined to operator working hours to further obstruct malicious threat actor activity; organizations are encouraged to establish monitoring and alerting for access attempts not meeting these criteria [CPG 3.E].
- Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and default passwords. Block all unused high ephemeral ports and monitor for attempted connections using standard protocols on non-standard ports [CPG 3.R].
- Authenticate all access to field controllers before authorizing access to, or modification of, a device’s state, logic, program, or filesystems.
Enable control system security features that can separate and audit view and control functions. Limiting remotely accessible or default user accounts to “view-only” removes the potential for impact without exploiting a vulnerability [CPG 3.G].
Implement and practice business recovery/disaster recovery plans. Plans should also take into consideration redundancy, fail-safe mechanisms, islanding capabilities, backup restoration, and manual operation.
- Include scenarios that necessitate switching to manual operations. Maintaining the capability of an organization to revert to manual controls to quickly restore operations is vital in the immediate aftermath of a cyber incident [CPG 6.A].
- Create backups of the engineering logic, configurations, and firmware of HMIs to enable fast recovery. Organizations should routinely test backups and standby systems to ensure safe manual operations in the event of an incident [CPG 3.O].
Collect and monitor the traffic of OT assets and networking devices. This includes unusual logins or unexpected protocols communicating over the internet, and functions of ICS management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
Review configurations for setpoint ranges or tag values to stay within safe ranges and establish alerting for deviations.
Take a proactive approach in the procurement process by following the guidance outlined in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products.

OT Device Manufacturers

Although critical infrastructure organizations can take steps to mitigate risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of OT device manufacturers to build products that are secure by design. The authoring organizations urge device manufacturers to take ownership of the security outcomes of their customers in line with the joint guide Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software.

Eliminate default credentials and require strong passwords. The use of default credentials is a top weakness threat actors exploit to gain access to systems.
Mandate MFA for privileged users. Changes to engineering logic or configurations are safety-impacting events in critical infrastructure. MFA should be available for safety critical components at no additional cost.
Practice secure by default principles. OT components were initially designed without public internet connectivity in mind. When internet connection becomes necessary, implementing additional security measures is essential to safeguard these systems. Manufacturers should recognize insecure states and promptly inform users so they can make informed risk decisions.
- Include logging at no additional charge. Change and access control logs allow operators to track safety-impacting events in their critical infrastructure. These logs should be available for no cost and use open standard logging formats.
Publish Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs). Vulnerabilities in underlying software libraries can affect a wide range of devices. Without an SBOM, it is nearly impossible for a critical infrastructure system owner to measure and mitigate the impact of a vulnerability on their existing systems. See CISA’s SBOM webpage for more information.

Additionally, see CISA’s Secure by Design Alert on how software manufacturers can shield web management interfaces from malicious cyber activity. By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make their product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.

For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage.

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring organizations recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization’s security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring organizations recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how it performs against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To start:

Select an ATT&CK technique described in this advisory (see Table 1 to Table 10).
Align your security technologies against the technique.
Test your technologies against the technique.
Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.
Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.
Tune your security program, including people, processes, and technologies, based on the data generated by this process.

The authoring organizations recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.

Resources

Entities requiring additional support for implementing any of the mitigations in this advisory should contact their regional CISA Cybersecurity Advisor for assistance. Key resources organizations should reference include:

CISA, EPA, NSA, FBI, ASD’s ACSC, Cyber Centre, BSI, NCSC-NL, and NCSC-NZ’s Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators offers best practices to assist organizations in identifying and prioritizing which assets should be secured and protected.
CISA, FBI, NSA, EPA, DOE, USDA, FDA, MS-ISAC, Cyber Centre, and NCSC-UK’s guidance on Defending OT Operations Against Ongoing Pro-Russia Hacktivist Activity that can help organizations protect OT systems from pro-Russia hacktivist activity.
NSA and CISA’s guidance on Control System Defense: Know the Opponent helps organizations defend OT and ICS assets against malicious cyber activity.
CISA and EPA’s resource page on Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity to help organizations reduce risks posed by malicious cyber actors targeting water and wastewater systems.
- For additional guidance, see CISA, EPA, and FBI’s fact sheet on Top Cyber Actions for Securing Water Systems.
The Food and Ag-ISAC’s best practices on Food and Ag Cybersecurity: A Guide for Small & Medium Enterprises provides recommendations to help mitigate against cyber threats.
DOE and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Cybersecurity Baselines for Electric Distribution Systems and Distributed Energy (DER) webpage provides resources for state public utility commissions and utilities, as well as DER operators and aggregators to help mitigate cybersecurity risks.

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

EPA’s Cybersecurity for the Water Sector resource page provides organizations with guidance on implementing basic cyber hygiene practices.
CISA’s Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals enables critical infrastructure organizations to reduce the likelihood and impact of known risks and adversary techniques.
CISA’s Require Strong Passwords webpage supports small and medium-sized businesses mitigating against malicious cyber activity that targets weak passwords.
CISA, NSA, FBI, EPA, TSA, and international partners’ guidance Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products.
DOE’s guidance on Cyber-Informed Engineering recommends considering cyber-enabled risks during the conception, design, and development phases when manufacturing physical systems.
CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services help enable critical infrastructure organizations to reduce their exposure to threats by taking a proactive approach to monitoring and mitigating attack vectors.
CISA, NSA, FBI, and international partners’ guidance on Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software urges software manufacturers to provide customers with products that are safer and more secure.
- See more information in these Secure by Design Alerts: How Manufacturers Can Protect Customers by Eliminating Default Passwords and How Software Manufacturers Can Shield Web Management Interfaces From Malicious Cyber Activity.

Contact Information

U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA:

Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472) or your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: date, time, and location of the incident; type of activity; number of people affected; type of equipment used for the activity; the name of the submitting company or organization; and a designated point of contact.
For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov.

Australian organizations: Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories.

Canadian organizations: Report incidents by emailing Cyber Centre at contact@cyber.gc.ca.

New Zealand organizations: Report cyber security incidents to incidents@ncsc.govt.nz or call 04 498 7654.

United Kingdom organizations: Report a significant cyber security incident: report.ncsc.gov.uk (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973.

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The authoring organizations do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by FBI and co-sealers.

Acknowledgements

Schneider Electric, Nozomi Networks, Eversource Energy, Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Chevron, BP, and Dragos contributed to this advisory.

Version History

December 09, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

For further information on targeting methodologies for pro-Russia hacktivist groups, see:

CISA’s alert Unsophisticated Cyber Threat Actor(s) Targeting Operational Technology;
The joint fact sheet Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology; and
CISA’s Russia Cyber Threat webpage.

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups

The cybersecurity industry and cyber actor groups often use various names to reference actor groups. While not exhaustive, the following are the most notable names used within the cybersecurity community to reference the groups in this advisory.

Note: Cybersecurity organizations have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the authoring organizations’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

GRU military unit 74455
- Sandworm Team
- Voodoo Bear
- Seashell Blizzard
- APT44
Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR)
- CyberArmy of Russia
- Народная CyberАрмия (НКА)
- People’s CyberArmy of Russia (PCA)
- Russian CyberArmy Team (RCAT)
NoName057(16)
- NoName057(16) Spain
- NoName057(16) Italy
- NoName057(16) France
Z-Pentest
- Z-Pentest Beograd
- Z-Pentest Alliance
- Z-Alliance

The Rust Programming Language Blog: Announcing Rust 1.96.0

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:36 +0200

The Rust team is happy to announce a new version of Rust, 1.96.0. Rust is a programming language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.

If you have a previous version of Rust installed via rustup, you can get 1.96.0 with:

$ rustup update stable

If you don't have it already, you can get rustup from the appropriate page on our website, and check out the detailed release notes for 1.96.0.

If you'd like to help us out by testing future releases, you might consider updating locally to use the beta channel (rustup default beta) or the nightly channel (rustup default nightly). Please report any bugs you might come across!

What's in 1.96.0 stable

New `Range*` types

Many users expect Range and related core::ops types to be Copy, but this is not the case: they implement Iterator directly, and it is a footgun to implement both Iterator and Copy on the same type so this has been avoided. RFC3550 proposed a set of replacement range types that implement IntoIterator rather than Iterator, meaning they can also be Copy. The standard library portion of that RFC is now stable, introducing:

core::range::Range
core::range::RangeFrom
core::range::RangeInclusive
Associated iterators

A Rust version in the near future will also add core::range::RangeFull and core::range::RangeTo as re-exports from core::ops (these do not implement Iterator and already implement Copy), and core::range::legacy::* as the new home for the current ranges. Range syntax like 0..1 still produces the legacy types for now, but will be updated to core::range types in a future edition.

With these stabilizations, it is now possible to store slice accessors in Copy types without splitting start and end:

use core::range::Range;

#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
pub struct Span(Range<usize>);

impl Span {
    pub fn of(self, s: &str) -> &str {
        &s[self.0]
    }
}

The new RangeInclusive also makes its fields public, unlike the legacy version which avoided exposing the exhausted iterator state. This isn't a concern with the new type since it must be converted to begin iteration.

Library authors should consider making use of impl RangeBounds in public API, which accepts both legacy and new range types. If a concrete type is needed, prefer using new ranges as this will eventually become the default.

Assert matching patterns

The new macros assert_matches! and debug_assert_matches! check that a value matches a given pattern, panicking with a Debug representation of the value otherwise. These are essentially the same as assert!(matches!(..)) and debug_assert!(matches!(..)), but the printed value improves the possibility of diagnosing the failure.

These new macros have not been added to the standard prelude, because they would collide with popular third-party crates that provide macros with the same name. Instead, they should be manually imported from core or std before use.

use core::assert_matches;

/// [Random Number](https://xkcd.com/221/)
fn get_random_number() -> u32 {
    // chosen by a fair dice roll.
    // guaranteed to be random.
    4
}

fn main() {
    assert_matches!(get_random_number(), 1..=6);
}

Changes to WebAssembly targets

WebAssembly targets no longer pass --allow-undefined to the linker which means that undefined symbols when linking are now a linker error instead of being converted to WebAssembly imports from the "env" module. This change prevents modules from linking unless all linking-related symbols are defined to catch bugs earlier and prevent accidental issues with symbol naming or similar.

Undefined linking-related symbols are often indicative of build-time related bugs or misconfiguration. If, however, the old behavior is intended then it can be re-enabled with RUSTFLAGS=-Clink-arg=--allow-undefined or by editing the source code and using #[link(wasm_import_module = "env")] on the block defining the symbol.

This change was previously announced on this blog, and now takes effect in Rust 1.96.

Stabilized APIs

Two Cargo advisories

Rust 1.96 contains fixes for two vulnerabilities for users of third-party registries.

CVE-2026-5223 is a medium severity vulnerability regarding extraction of crate tarballs with symlinks.
CVE-2026-5222 is a low severity vulnerability regarding authentication with normalized URLs.

Users of crates.io are not affected by either vulnerability.

Other changes

Check out everything that changed in Rust, Cargo, and Clippy.

Contributors to 1.96.0

Many people came together to create Rust 1.96.0. We couldn't have done it without all of you. Thanks!

Firefox Nightly: Backup for a Rainy Day – These Weeks in Firefox: Issue 202

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:35 +0200

Highlights

The profile backup mechanism has been enabled by default for all desktop platforms in Nightly, as well as Beta! The current plan is to have this ride out to Firefox 151 for Windows, macOS and Linux on May 18th!
- This feature, when enabled, will create a copy of your profile data in the background and store it in a single file on your file system that you can restore from.
- You will be able to manage this feature in Settings under Sync (for now)
- You can read more about the feature here
As followups to the recent addition to the WebExtension tabs API to support the new SplitView tabs feature, tabs.group() and tabs.ungroup() have been fixed to work correctly with split view tabs, and fixed split views being prepended instead of appended to tab groups when adopted into a new window – Bug 2029099 / Bug 2029534
Adaptive autofill has been enabled on Nightly.
- Previously, autofill only completed domains (e.g. typing red autofilled reddit.com). Now it can also complete full URLs for pages you visit often (e.g. red → reddit.com/r/firefox), learning from what you actually click in the address bar. If a suggestion isn’t helpful, you can now dismiss it so autofill learns what not to show you too.
  - If you run into issues or have feedback, you can file a bug here!
Markus Stange [:mstange] implemented dynamic toolbar on top in RDM (#1978145), but also implemented some static skeleton UI so it’s closer to what we actually have in Firefox for Android
- dynamic toolbar is behind a pref: devtools.responsive.dynamicToolbar.enabled
- it can be put on top by setting devtools.responsive.dynamicToolbar.onTop, otherwise it’s at the bottom

Friends of the Firefox team

Resolved bugs (excluding employees)

Script to find new contributors from bug list

Volunteers that fixed more than one bug

Amin Amir
aoia7rz7l
Chukwuka Rosemary
DrSeed
Frédéric Wang Nélar
japandi
John Iweh
jonathancabera
Josh Aas
Keji Bakare
kofoworola shonuyi
konyhéa
liz
Mathew Hodson
Okhuomon Ajayi
Oluwatobi
ROSHAAN
Sam Johnson

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

Project Updates

Add-ons / Web Extensions

Addon Manager & about:addons

In preparation for the Project Nova restyling of the about:addons page, we have refactored about:addons into separate per-component ES modules, splitting the monolithic aboutaddons.js and aboutaddons.html into 16 dedicated component files under components/ (with no behavior or UI changes) – Bug 2032014
- NOTE: if you have working on patches with changes to about:addons internals it is very likely you’ll need to rebase and solve merge conflicts hit on top of this refactoring, the internals are still largely the same as before but don’t hesitate to reach out to the Addons team if you have doubts / questions or need help to figure out how to adapt your patch of top of these changes

WebExtensions Framework

Fixed exportFunction to preserve the constructibility of the wrapped function instead of unconditionally making all exported functions implicitly as constructors – Bug 2033173
- Thanks to Gregory Pappas for contributing this improvement to the Content Scripts’ Xray Wrappers helpers!
Fixed a Firefox 151 regression where extension content scripts accessing location.ancestorOrigins caused subsequent page script reads of the same property to fail with “Permission denied”, breaking sites like Gmail – Bug 2034329
- Thanks to Simon Farre for promptly investigating and fixing this recent regression!

WebExtension APIs

Updated sessions.getRecentlyClosed() to remove the hardcoded cap when maxResults is omitted – Bug 1392125
- Shoutout to Amine Zroual for contributing this enhancement to the sessions WebExtensions API!

DevTools

Artem Manushenkov fixed an issue where autosuggestion popup was removing overridden indicators from properties in the Inspector (#1983408)
Andrea Marchesini [:baku] fix DevTools cookie header serialization for long cookies, which could lead to cookies not being visible in Netmonitor (#2031299)
Julian Descottes [:jdescottes] fixed a toolbox crash that was happening we couldn’t find a localization file (e.g. when using a language pack on Nightly) (#2028930)
Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] improved @container tooltip so it show the value of variables used in style()(#2030239), has enough contrast in dark mode (#2033782) and contains a link to select the container (#2031688)
Hubert Boma Manilla (:bomsy) is making good progress on migrating the Console to CodeMirror 6 (#2032758, #2026569)

Fluent

We’re now at over 72% of our strings being Fluent! Got a component still using .properties? Convert when you can!

Migration Improvements

Thanks to dao for fixing a recent alignment issue in the migration wizard dropdown
Thanks to volunteer contributor Anthony Mclamb for his patch that disables the legacy EdgeHTML Edge migrator! Once that finishes rolling out, presuming no surprises, we’ll go ahead and remove the migrator entirely.

New Tab Page

Nova for New Tab has ridden the trains to Beta! It will be enabled by default, globally, when Firefox 151 goes out to release on May 19th
- It’s possible that we’ll do a train-hop coupled with an experiment to enable HNT Nova for a few clients a bit earlier.
Maxx Crawford enabled Nova designs for New Tab, rolling out the updated layout, widgets, and customization panel behind HNT Nova flags.
Maxx Crawford fixed the Nova content feed to render the intended four‑column layout by correcting CSS grid breakpoints.
Maxx Crawford resolved a first‑load failure in the Weather widget by fixing init order and fetch timing, eliminating the “Oops” error.
Maxx Crawford synchronized the Weather toggle between about:preferences#home and the panel via the shared showWeather pref to prevent desync.
Maxx Crawford updated Nova grid focus order to align tab flow with visual order for keyboard users.
Maxx Crawford fixed critical UI issues in Lists and Timer widgets covering overflow, controls, and layout stability.
Maxx Crawford guarded document.dir access in Nova render paths to avoid startup cache worker errors and improve startup stability.
Rolf added a new normalization method for the inferred interest vector to stabilize topic relevance across sessions.
Rolf prevented unnecessary content refreshes during Pocket New Tab experiments, reducing jank and bandwidth.
Sameeksha defined the Customize button’s expanded/collapsed state programmatically using aria-expanded for better a11y.
liz clarified follow/unfollow/blocked button names with topic context so screen readers announce clear actions.
Vector marked the Delete from History control as opening a dialog via aria-haspopup=dialog for assistive tech.
Scott Downe fixed a regression that flipped the Wallpapers pref off, restoring user selections.
Irene Ni corrected privacy link color and focus styles for contrast and keyboard visibility.
Reem Hamoui added a wallpaper toggle reset in the Nova customization panel so users can quickly restore default wallpapers without extra steps.
Reem Hamoui fixed the Customize pencil button to match the Nova spec, aligning placement and iconography for visual consistency.
Dre updated the ‘Fresh new’ wallpapers copy to a clearer, localized message for better comprehension.
Irene Ni fixed Nova privacy link color and focus styles to meet contrast and focus ring guidelines, improving accessibility on New Tab.
Irene Ni adjusted Sponsored tile character limits to prevent truncation/overflow, yielding cleaner titles across grid and wide tiles.
Scott Downe fixed a regression that flipped the Wallpapers user pref to false, restoring wallpapers for affected users and preventing unintended disablement.
Reem Hamoui hooked the wallpaper check into the new toggle logic so the Customization Panel accurately reflects wallpaper availability and state.
Irene Ni landed Nova UI updates for the Daily Briefing 3-pack card, improving spacing, type scale, and tap targets.
Reem Hamoui added a wallpaper toggle reset in the Nova customization panel so users can quickly restore default wallpapers without extra steps.
Reem Hamoui fixed the Customize pencil button to match the Nova spec, aligning placement and iconography for visual consistency.
Dre updated the ‘Fresh new’ wallpapers copy to a clearer, localized message for better comprehension.
Irene Ni fixed Nova privacy link color and focus styles to meet contrast and focus ring guidelines, improving accessibility on New Tab.
Irene Ni adjusted Sponsored tile character limits to prevent truncation/overflow, yielding cleaner titles across grid and wide tiles.
Scott Downe fixed a regression that flipped the Wallpapers user pref to false, restoring wallpapers for affected users and preventing unintended disablement.
Reem Hamoui hooked the wallpaper check into the new toggle logic so the Customization Panel accurately reflects wallpaper availability and state.
Irene Ni landed Nova UI updates for the Daily Briefing 3-pack card, improving spacing, type scale, and tap targets.

Search and Urlbar

Marco has fixed a couple of issues with the places databases to try and improve stability. This should help with avoiding users losing bookmarks or favicons.
Work continues on the new separate search bar to improve the functionality, e.g. allowing middle click to perform a search in a new tab, avoiding performing a search when adding a search engine.
Work also continues on the new Nova layouts.

Smart Window

uplifted 10 bugs to 150.0.1 dot release addressing initial user feedback from diary study and Connect
- jump to bottom of conversation 2028692
- stop streaming button 2029204
- back/forward navigation from assistant 2029229
- dark mode for various chips 2024499
search engine switching from smart bar 2021973
Nova styling within smart window 2026794

Storybook/Reusable Components/Acorn Design System

Dustin converted moz-breadcrumb-group variables into JSON design tokens Bug 2029181 – Convert moz-breadcrumb-group variables into JSON design tokens
Dustin converted moz-box-* variables into JSON design tokens Bug 2029180 – Convert moz-box-* variables into JSON design tokens
Dustin converted moz-promo variables to JSON design tokens Bug 2029190 – Convert moz-promo variables into JSON design tokens
Dustin converted moz-reorderable-list variables to JSON design tokens Bug 2029191 – Convert moz-reorderable-list variables into JSON design tokens
Dustin converted moz-visual-picker variables to JSON design tokens Bug 2029193 – Convert moz-visual-picker-item variables into JSON design tokens
Dustin updated browser-shared.css so it passes use-design-tokens Bug 2022985 – Update browser-shared.css so it passes use-design-tokens
Dustin updated popup.css so it passes use-design-tokens Bug 2022979 – Update popup.css so it passes use-design-tokens
Jon added opacity tokens and added opacity to use-design-tokens stylelint rule Bug 1955325 – Create opacity tokens
Jon converted toolbar design tokens to JSON Bug 2017970 – Convert toolbar design tokens to json
Anna fixed moz-select with panel-list drop-down size inconsistency Bug 2032365 – Applications Action drop-down menus sometimes have a different size when opened
Anna fixed issue with the disabled state of moz-radio component Bug 2027123 – moz-radio disabled state cannot be changed while the moz-radio-group is disabled
Anna updated moz-button and moz-box-button components to prevent label corruption when accesskeys are present and the label changes. Bug 2022326 – moz-button with accesskey label becomes corrupted when l10nId updates dynamically

UX Fundamentals

The error pages shown when a server sends back an invalid response header or an unsupported content encoding now display accurate, context-specific messages. The invalid response header page also gained a helpful list of next steps. – 2027209
In progress: The error page illustrations are being replaced with new artwork, and the system now supports per-illustration size configuration, giving each image the ability to define its own appropriate dimensions. – 2031837

Settings Redesign

Tim converted settings related to Accessibility page to config-based pane Bug 1968116 – Convert settings related to Accessibility page to config-based settings
Benjamin converted Privacy & Security page to the config-based pane Bug 1968112 – Convert settings related to Privacy & Security page to config-based settings
Finn integrated Firefox Labs page into setting-pane config Bug 2021047 – Integrate Firefox Labs page into setting-pane config
Anna converted Firefox Updates section to config-based prefs Bug 1990961 – Convert Firefox Updates section to config-based prefs
Mark Kennedy added moz-promo, that is welcoming users to the redesigned settings Bug 2015093 – Add a moz-promo to welcome users to the redesign
Anna added possibility to search for actions in the redesigned “Applications” section Bug 2020370 – It’s no longer possible to search for actions in the new “Applications” section
Anna fixed the Settings navbar layout breakage

Hacks.Mozilla.Org: PACT: Anonymous Credentials for the Web

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:27 +0200

This is the technical companion to our update on Distilled, “Keeping the web open and private in the bot era.” Here we take a deeper look at the problem space, the design we’re proposing, and the problems still left to solve.

Bots (and privacy-preserving browsers) not welcome

Browse a news site in a private window. Shop at a major retailer with a VPN. Visit a video streaming platform with anti-fingerprinting defenses tuned up. You’ll see the same responses: registration walls, block pages, and endless CAPTCHAs. The message is clear: if we think you might be a bot, you’re not welcome.

Websites have valid reasons for wanting to block bots. Bots enable volumetric abuse, abuse that wouldn’t otherwise be feasible if they had to be carried out by humans. For example: SEO comment spam, credential stuffing and DDoSing. Consequently many sites employ dedicated anti-abuse tooling which aims to keep the bots out whilst minimizing friction for human visitors.

Unfortunately, that tooling is increasingly failing at both tasks. Browser privacy protections are dismantling the passive signals that anti-abuse systems depended on to identify and distinguish visitors. Meanwhile advances in generative AI have rendered CAPTCHAs ineffective: bots now solve them faster and more reliably than humans.

Many sites are switching to more invasive mechanisms and now ask visitors to disclose identifying information, e.g. an email address, a federated login or disabling their VPN. This means greater friction for users, since providing these details on a first visit takes time. It also compromises their privacy, since these details enable the same kinds of cross-site tracking that browser privacy protections were intended to mitigate.

This leaves users with a dilemma. The more effectively they protect their privacy, the harder it is for websites to distinguish them from bots and the worse the treatment they receive. Website operators are also suffering. The additional friction they inflict upon well-behaved visitors harms their site, but many are willing to pay the costs if it mitigates volumetric abuse.

Browser-based AI agents make this tension more acute. Sites may want to allow agents which are acting on behalf of individual users while blocking agents engaged in volumetric abuse. However, with no effective mechanisms to distinguish the two, websites are opting to block both. That hurts users, who should be free to choose the user agent they use to access the web; it hurts new browsers and agents, which struggle to interoperate; and it hurts sites, which lose legitimate visitors.

The consequence is that the web gets worse for everyone. Users get more friction or less privacy or both. Website operators see more volumetric abuse and the friction they add drives away users who would otherwise want to consume their content or services. New user agents struggle to access the same content as conventional browsers.

The Costs of Convenient Solutions

Some large ecosystem players have put forward solutions that leverage their control of the dominant operating systems and their deep integration with consumer hardware. These rely on device attestation: identifiers and privileged code baked into devices at the hardware level, which let manufacturers prove what software is running on a user’s device. Exposing this functionality to the web means attesting to sites that the user is running approved software with trusted hardware and therefore isn’t a bot. There have been two substantive proposals.

Google’s Web Environment Integrity, abandoned in 2023, was the blunt version. It attested to the user agent itself, as well as the operating system and device in use. Users would have lost control in two ways: once to the attester, which would decide which operating systems and devices could be blessed, and again to the website, which would decide which software to accept. If sites had adopted allow-lists of approved user agents, building a new browser would have become virtually impossible, and sites could have withdrawn access from any user agent they chose.

Apple’s Private Access Tokens, deployed across their ecosystem in 2022, have more subtle issues. Built on the Privacy Pass protocol standardized at the IETF, they get a lot right: a user receives a renewed, limited batch of one-time tokens that can be presented to websites without linking their visits together. This provides privacy for users and has shown rate limits to be an effective tool for sites – both points we’ll return to later in this post.

However, Private Access Tokens rely on device attestation, requiring that the hardware manufacturer be in overall control of the user’s device. Presenting a PAT tells a website you are locked into Apple’s rules for what counts as acceptable software. Due to PAT’s technical design^[1], there’s no way to open the system to other sources of scarcity without compromising the system’s privacy properties, meaning that if more widely deployed, access to the web would become tied to having bought expensive hardware from a small, hard to change set of vendors.

Both approaches are ultimately hostile to users and to the openness of the web. Both are premised on parts of a user’s device that sit within the manufacturer’s control and beyond the user’s own. Were they widely deployed, the web would become just another walled garden with centralized gatekeepers controlling acceptable hardware, operating systems and software. As convenient as these solutions are for the players who already dominate the ecosystem, we think there’s a better path.

A Better Path Forward

Bots’ harms arise from their ability to operate beyond human scale. For sites to prevent volumetric abuse they don’t actually need to know the user’s identity or receive cryptographic proof that they’re running approved software. If sites knew their visitors were restricted to a rate limit set by a site, that would be enough.

Rate limits only make sense if they’re tied to something scarce; something an attacker can’t cheaply replicate to evade the limit. Without anchoring to a scarce resource, like the trusted hardware used in Private Access Tokens, attackers can generate as many fresh identities as they need to bypass the rate limit.

However, hardware is just one option for scarcity. Anything a user already has that an attacker can’t trivially spin up at scale will work: email addresses and phone numbers are naturally scarce. A paid subscription costs an attacker the same as a real user. Even maintaining an account on a free service requires some non-trivial work.

What if we could use these scarce signals across the web? We could build an open ecosystem with many parties offering scarcity signals, each site choosing which to accept. By opening up who can provide a signal, and letting sites choose which to accept, we can avoid transferring control to device manufacturers and the resulting harms.

As a concrete example of who might be well positioned to provide such a signal, we can consider VPN providers acting as a subscription service. Sites routinely block VPN users indiscriminately, whether through a deliberate policy choice or through an indirect consequence of rate limiting visitors per IP address. But a VPN subscription is a perfect source of scarcity. If the VPN provider could vouch for its users so that sites could rate limit each user individually – then users would be able to browse the web with less friction and without giving up their VPN usage.

The catch is that building a system that can enable this on the open web whilst maintaining user’s privacy is genuinely difficult. It requires that we take information from one site — that this user holds some scarce thing — and expose it to other sites so that they can use that as the basis for their rate limiting. Letting one site verify a signal from another is the sort of information flow that privacy-preserving browsers have spent the last decade locking down to prevent cross-site tracking.

Our goal would be that no more than the minimum information gets through: a single bit communicating whether the user is below the rate limit set by the site. Leaking anything more – like the source of the scarcity that the rate limit is anchored to – would be unacceptable. Enabling a new cross-site information flow might feel like compromising privacy to gain better access, but reality is more nuanced. If a new system moves sites away from demanding that visitors be identifiable (whether through fingerprinting or login forms), it can be a win for both privacy and access.

The Foundations

The good news is that the cryptographic foundations for a privacy preserving approach already exist. The Privacy Pass protocol, originally developed in 2018 to reduce the friction of Cloudflare CAPTCHAs for Tor users, introduced the core primitive: a token that is unlinkable between issuance and redemption. You prove something to an issuer (e.g. by solving a CAPTCHA), receive some tokens, and later present a token to a website. The website can verify the token is legitimate, but can’t link it to the user it was issued to.

Figure 1: In Privacy Pass, a CAPTCHA provider can issue tokens to a client which can then be used to bypass challenges for future site visits. Even if the CAPTCHA provider and sites collude, they can’t use the tokens to identify the user or their browsing history.

Privacy Pass has gone on to be successfully deployed in systems where the issuer and verifier have a prior trust relationship: Apple uses it to authenticate users of Private Cloud Compute and Private Relay without linking their activity to their identity, Chrome uses it for two-hop IP protection, and Kagi uses it to provide private search. These deployments work in part because a small number of parties have agreed in advance on who issues tokens and who accepts them.

Applying this approach to an open system where any site can act as an issuer brings real challenges. Firstly, even though tokens are unlinkable, knowing a user has access to a specific issuer is a privacy leak on its own, because you can infer that the user meets the relevant issuance criteria. If one site can learn that you have a token from another site, that reveals that you have been to that site, which can be a major privacy problem. This compounds if sites can learn the set of issuers you have visited, since it becomes a fingerprint which can be used to identify you.

Generic techniques exist for proving a statement in zero knowledge: we can prove that a client has a token from a set of acceptable issuers without revealing which specific issuer it is. We’ll call this issuer blinding. The generic approach is often slow, but bespoke approaches tailored to the underlying cryptography can improve this considerably.

Another challenge is how sites using rate limits decide who to trust to issue tokens. If an issuer misbehaves then the site’s rate limits become ineffective, enabling volumetric abuse. However, if we need to prevent the site from learning which issuers a user has access to, the site is only going to know that one of its trusted issuers was used, not which one. This makes mistakes or misbehaviour by an issuer difficult to detect, and makes it hard for sites to evaluate new issuers. Solving this challenge is essential for openness. Without adequate information, sites are likely to lean towards conservative issuer selection. That could lead to less choice between Anchors, which in turn could lead to a new form of gatekeeper being created.

To solve this, sites at least need a way to calculate an aggregate score for each issuer they use. This should roughly correspond to how much of the traffic it considers abusive to have come from users using that particular issuer. Mozilla has long invested in systems like Prio which use multiparty computation (MPC) to protect user privacy whilst enabling aggregate measurements of system behaviour.

Privacy Pass also struggles to handle dynamic adjustments to rate limits. Once tokens have been issued, they’re difficult to invalidate without either revoking all active tokens or risking attacks which can compromise the privacy of users. It’s also beneficial if sites can adjust rate limits on a per client basis, for example by increasing rate limits where they become more confident the client is benign and withdrawing access when abuse is detected.

Anonymous Credit Tokens offer a useful building block to solve this problem. Conventional Privacy Pass schemes rely on issuing a bucket of tokens but ACT works differently by enabling the use of a credential with state. For example, an ACT credential can hold an internal counter. When the credential is presented, the site can check the counter is over some threshold and mutate it, increasing or decreasing the counter whenever the site’s perception of the holder has improved or worsened. Critically, the exact value is never leaked to the site, preventing the site from tracking the holder and ensuring successive presentations of the same credential can’t be linked.

Putting it together

So how can we combine these techniques to build a system which can enable privacy-preserving rate limiting on the open web? In May 2026, we participated in a W3C CG Meeting in collaboration with Cloudflare, Chrome and other web stakeholders in which we started sketching out a design we’re calling PACT – Private Access Control Tokens.

Rate limits need a starting point, a source of scarcity to anchor on. We’ll call an entity that provides such a source an Anchor. To a user who meets the Anchor’s criteria, like having a subscription, an account in good standing, or a verified phone number, an Anchor issues a batch of Endorsement tokens, following the Privacy Pass model. In practice, Anchors could be any website which has access to this kind of signal. An Endorsement conveys scarcity to other sites.

That’s enough for a simple system where access is either granted or denied. But as we discussed earlier, we also want the ability to increase access where a visitor behaves benignly and decrease it where they don’t. The state needed to enforce a rate limit can’t live in the Endorsement, because Endorsements cross trust boundaries between unrelated sites. We need a second object that can hold that state, scoped to the party that maintains it.

We’ll call that the party that handles rate limiting for a site a Moderator and the stateful object a Credential. A Credential is specific to a Moderator and, unlike endorsements, we limit each site to nominating a single Moderator. In the common case the site itself plays the Moderator role, so there’s no new entity or trust boundary. A Moderator can also be a third-party service shared across many sites, allowing those sites to cooperatively share a rate limit.

In the terminology of the previous section, the Anchor is the issuer of Endorsements, and the Moderator both verifies Endorsements and issues Credentials. A Moderator manages rate-limit policy: it decides which Anchors it trusts, accepts their Endorsements, and issues a Credential in return.

Figure 2: (1) Clients acquire Endorsements from Anchors in the course of normal browsing to sites they have relationships with. (2) Clients can exchange Endorsements for a stateful Credential from a Moderator. (3) Credentials can be used to access sites which use that Moderator. Credentials can be updated over time.

Directly revealing which Anchor backed an Endorsement would leak a lot of information about the user. The issuer blinding techniques from the previous section solve this: when an Endorsement is redeemed, the Moderator only learns that it came from one of the Anchors it trusts, but not which one.

When a Moderator covers more than one site, we let Credentials be presented across all of them but partition cookies and storage as we would for any other third party site. The unlinkability of Credential presentations keeps this from creating a new cross-site identifier. The benefit is that good behaviour on one site improves access on every site the Moderator covers, and bad behaviour cuts it everywhere. Websites can already build the same capability with a shared account system, so this doesn’t create a new way to lock users out, but it does provide a new way to grant access without requiring users to give up their privacy.

Enabling Moderators that cover many sites carries a centralisation risk, similar to the concentration we see today in anti-abuse providers. The mitigation is that the choice of Moderator stays with each site, and the choice of trusted Anchors stays with each Moderator. This can’t reverse the centralisation pressure the web already faces, but it ensures this system won’t lead to additional lock-in: a new Anchor or a new Moderator can be adopted without coordinating with a dominant vendor.

The system then has three flows. First, the user receives Endorsements from an Anchor in the course of normal interaction, based on the Anchor’s positive view of the user. This is a relatively rare operation for any given user and Anchor. After all, as our source of scarcity, Endorsements should not be too easy to accumulate.

Figure 3: In the course of normal browsing, clients browse to websites they have a relationship with. These sites can act as Anchors by issuing Endorsements to clients.

Second, when the user arrives at a site that works with a Moderator, the browser spends an Endorsement from an Anchor the Moderator trusts and receives a Credential in return. The presentation hides which Anchor was used, and neither the Anchor nor the Moderator can trace the Endorsement back to where it was issued. The Moderator decides what initial balance the Credential starts with. If the user has no Endorsements from suitable Anchors at all, existing mechanisms (CAPTCHAs, account creation, federated login) could be used to bootstrap a Credential the same way, so the system degrades to today’s experience rather than locking the user out.

Figure 4: When the client browses to a site, it can prompt the client for a Credential from the Moderator it uses. If the Client doesn’t have a suitable Credential, but does have a suitable Endorsement, it can exchange it for a Credential with the Moderator. In practice, the Moderator and the Site might be the same server.

Third, as the user browses, the browser presents the Credential and the Moderator updates the internal state of the Credential. The Moderator can reward behaviour that looks benign and penalize suspicious activity, but can’t track the use of the Credential or identify it if it’s used on other sites the Moderator covers. Revocation falls out of the same mechanism: a Moderator can refuse to return an updated Credential.

Figure 5: The Client can present the Credential on sites which use the matching Moderator. Sites can check if the Credential is in good standing. The sites can then adjust the access the Credential has in response to behaviour. E.g. increasing it when they gain confidence in the client or reducing it in response to malicious behaviour.

In practice, all of this would happen transparently to the user through a WebAPI that sites acting as Anchors or Moderators would call from JavaScript. In an ideal ecosystem, users would accumulate Endorsements through normal browsing, just by virtue of the sites they already visit, and the rest of the flow would happen in the background as they move around the web, leaving users with meaningfully less friction.

AI agents acting on behalf of a user slot into the same flow. An agent can carry its user’s Credentials, in which case the user remains accountable for how the agent behaves. Sites would not need to grant any more access than they would to the user themselves. Alternatively, the operator of an agent can run its own Anchor and vouch for its agents the way other Anchors vouch for human users. Sites retain control over which Anchors they accept, so they can choose how to treat agent traffic without needing a separate detection mechanism.

Several mechanisms combine to keep the information about a user that flows out close to a single bit. Cryptographic unlinkability ensures successive Credential presentations cannot be tied to each other or to the original issuance, so a user’s visits cannot be joined into a history. Each site is bound to a single Moderator, so the set of Moderators a user has Credentials with never becomes a cross-site fingerprint. The Anchor-to-Credential exchange happens in an isolated browsing context, so during ordinary browsing the only thing the site or its Moderator ever observes is a Credential presentation: the site only learns if the user has a valid Credential below the rate limit, or nothing. When the Moderator updates a Credential, it adjusts the credentials state without learning what it is.

The additional privacy given to users from Issuer blinding makes participating in the system more challenging for Moderators. Because the Moderator can’t see which Anchor backed a Credential at issuance, it can’t give a Credential from a strong Anchor more access than one from a weak Anchor: doing so would itself leak which Anchor was used. The initial access has to be uniform across the Moderator’s whole pool of Anchors, which in practice means setting it at the strength of the weakest. However, this is only relevant for that initial access, the Moderator can update credentials according to the holder’s behavior, enabling Credential’s to accrue access over time.

Building an open ecosystem also requires that sites can make effective decisions about the Anchors they choose to trust. Multiparty computation systems like Prio enable aggregate scoring without compromising privacy. When users present Credentials, they can provide an encrypted share which identifies the anchor they used and can be privately aggregated to compute the quality of an issuer.

Next Steps

We think the architecture we’ve sketched for PACT has the right shape, but many of the details still need to be worked out and the entire system needs rigorous privacy and security analysis.

We want to do that work in the open. The IETF is the natural venue for the cryptographic protocols underneath, and the W3C for the WebAPI surface that sits on top. We’ll be bringing draft specifications to these bodies as soon as they’re ready, and we welcome collaborators from across the ecosystem: browser vendors, site operators, anti-abuse providers, and the cryptography community.

If successful, we think we can provide a system which will keep the web open and private, while still giving sites the rate-limiting signal they need.

Acknowledgements

The ideas described here are the result of collaboration and conversations with many people, including: Watson Ladd, Thibault Meunier, Michele Orrù, Trevor Perrin, Eric Rescorla, Samuel Schlesinger, Martin Thomson, Eric Trouton, Benjamin Vandersloot & Cathie Yun.

[1] PAT requires that the source of scarcity and an independent issuer be trusted not to collude. If they do, they can track users as they interact with the system. This is not suitable in the context of an open system where any party could play those two roles.

The post PACT: Anonymous Credentials for the Web appeared first on Mozilla Hacks - the Web developer blog.

A Video Screen That Is Also a Camera

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:08 +0200

Amazing:

Researchers from ETH Zurich in Switzerland, however, managed to create a new type of pixel that can simultaneously do both. This hypercharged pixel, called a Fourier pixel, can generate and sense arbitrary light fields and tap into a pixel’s full potential for carrying information by manipulating light’s intensity, oscillation phases, and polarization. The team reported its findings in a paper published yesterday in Nature.

We are one step closer to 1984 technology:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment...

AMD's 19.6 TB/s Monster AI-Chip Just Made NVIDA's VERA RUBIN Look Like a JOKE!

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:35:56 +0200

Author: Evolving AI - Bewertung: 614x - Views:23208

AMD may have finally built a real challenger to NVIDIA’s AI empire. In this video, we break down the AMD Instinct MI400 series and the flagship MI455X AI accelerator, featuring 432GB of HBM4 memory, 19.6TB/s of memory bandwidth, up to 40 petaflops of FP4 compute, and an advanced chiplet architecture designed for next-generation AI training and inference. But AMD’s real weapon is bigger than one chip. The Helios rack-scale AI platform combines 72 MI455X GPUs with next-generation AMD EPYC “Venice” CPUs, massive HBM4 capacity, high-speed networking, ROCm software, and open technologies like UALink to challenge NVIDIA’s tightly integrated AI infrastructure. We also explore how AMD plans to compete with NVIDIA Vera Rubin, the importance of ROCm versus CUDA, and why major AI companies and cloud providers are increasingly looking for alternatives to NVIDIA. Could AMD finally turn the AI accelerator market into a real two-company war?

#AMD #NVIDIA #MI455X #AIChips #InstinctMI400 #Helios #ArtificialIntelligence

3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:50 +0200

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
More products create more complexity.
More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
More alerts require more analysts.
More analysts produce more reports.
More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
Software supply chain complexity.
Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:22 +0200

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says.

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates.

“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously.

“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018.

The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases.

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees.

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents.

“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”

“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern.

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January.

Potentially widespread fallout

A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked.

“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”

The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”

Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around.

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.

As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records.

“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs.

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

SpaceX launches new V3 Starlink satellites but suffers another booster failure

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 01:32:48 +0200

The company ticked off a few more boxes on the second Starship V3 flight, but appears to have had another issue re-lighting the booster's rocket engines.

VentureBeat Research: Where enterprise AI agent governance hasn't caught up

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:51:31 +0200

Enterprises deployed AI agents ahead of the controls needed to manage them — and they did it knowingly. That is the central finding across the five parallel surveys VentureBeat Research fielded in June, spanning every layer of the agentic stack. Now those enterprises are retrofitting to catch up with their own standards, and they are budgeting for it: In each of the five control layers we measured, 57 to 68% of enterprises plan to switch vendors or add new ones within 12 months, and roughly a third, depending on the layer, plan to move within the quarter.

VentureBeat Research measured the five controls an enterprise has to build before it can trust an agent: identity, evaluation, cost telemetry, the context layer, and orchestration. Identity governs which agent is allowed to do what, under whose credentials. Evaluation determines whether the agent's work is any good. Cost telemetry tracks what each agent costs to run. The context layer supplies the business data and definitions agents draw on when they answer. And the orchestration control plane coordinates multi-step agent work. Each of our five reports measures one of those controls.

Most deployed "agents" are chatbots wearing the label. Seventy-one percent of enterprises said a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" can complete multi-step work on their own; only 10% said true agents are the majority of what they run. These respondents are positioned to know: 81% recommend or decide AI purchases at their companies. A single-prompt chatbot with a human reading every answer needs none of the controls the other four reports measure. A true multi-step agent needs all of them — and most enterprises can't say which one they've deployed. (Full findings: Agentic Orchestration report.)

Autonomy is outrunning trust in the evaluations that gate it. Two-thirds of enterprises either already allow an agent to push a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human review, or are actively engineering toward that within 12 months. Only 5% fully trust the evaluations that would make that call — and half of enterprises shipped an agent that passed internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure in the past year. Before removing human review from any workflow, test evaluations against production outcomes rather than internal benchmarks. (Full findings: Agent Reliability & Evals report.)

Companies that let agents share credentials get hit more often. Sixty-nine percent of companies let at least some of their agents share credentials — multiple agents operating under one API key or service account. Organizations that allow credential sharing anywhere experienced a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (nine of 22) at companies where every agent has its own scoped identity. The fix is scoped identity for every agent, starting with the ones that touch production systems. (Full findings: Agentic Security & Identity report.)

The most expensive hardware in the building runs at half capacity or less. More than eight in 10 enterprises that run their own GPUs reported utilization of 50% or less, and only 44% rigorously track what their AI compute actually costs and returns. The number worth chasing first isn't more GPUs — it's the utilization and per-workload cost of the ones already running. (Full findings: AI Infrastructure & Compute report.)

Agents answer confidently from data nobody governs. Fifty-seven percent of enterprises traced a confident, wrong agent answer in the past six months to their own missing or inconsistent business context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, absent documents — and most saw it happen more than once. Governing the definitions agents answer from — metrics and entities first — has to come before scaling the agents that depend on them. (Full findings: Context Layers / RAG report.)

No layer has an entrenched incumbent: The defaults today are the built-in tools that ship with the big AI platforms enterprises already use. Switching intent runs highest in orchestration itself, where 68% plan to adopt, add, or replace platforms within 12 months and 34% within the quarter. Our surveys did not ask which direction that money moves — toward the platforms' built-in tools or toward the specialists challenging them — and that open question is the next four quarters of this market.

About this research

VentureBeat Research fielded five parallel surveys in June 2026 under its VB Pulse program: Agentic Orchestration (101 respondents), Agent Reliability & Evals (157), Agentic Security & Identity (107), AI Infrastructure & Compute (107), and Context Layers / RAG (101) — 573 qualified respondents in total, all at organizations with 100 or more employees. Samples are self-selected, and some findings should be read directionally; each report carries its full methodology note. What the pattern supports more strongly than any single percentage is the direction: every survey, independently, points the same way. VentureBeat produces both this research and VB Transform, the conference where these reports debuted.

Cape Fear Season 1 Episode 9 Ending Explained: Every Twist Before the Finale

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:48:40 +0200

The Cape Fear finale looks set to bring the Bowdens and the Cady family together for one final, violent confrontation. Episode 9 revealed several important family secrets while leaving Zack missing and Anna trapped near Cape Fear. Spoiler warning: This article contains major spoilers for Cape Fear Episode 9, “The Scar.” Finale release date: July 31, 2026 Episode title: “The Executioners” Season length: 10 episodes Genre: Psychological thriller and drama Streaming platform: Apple TV Main cast: Amy Adams, Javier Bardem, Patrick Wilson, Lily Collias, Joe Anders, CCH Pounder, Malia Pyles and Juliette Lewis Where the Story Is Heading Anna travelled to Cape Fear hoping to prove that Max Cady did not murder his wife, Melissa. She eventually discovered that Crystal killed Melissa out of jealousy and allowed Max to spend 17 years in prison for the crime. Anna also learned that Luke, the scarred young man living with Crystal, is the child Crystal had with Max. After Crystal stabbed Anna, she escaped by jumping into the Cape Fear River. Meanwhile, Zack disappeared from the psychiatric facility, suggesting that Max has taken him as part of his final plan. Max Cady Max will probably take Zack to Cape Fear and use him to force Anna and Tom into a final confrontation. Although Max was wrongly imprisoned for Melissa’s murder, the finale is unlikely to excuse the violence and manipulation he has committed since his release. Our prediction is that Max will die near the river, following the basic direction of earlier Cape Fear stories. Anna may kill him while protecting Zack or Natalie, completing the reversal from frightened victim to active survivor. Anna Bowden Anna now possesses the truth about Crystal, Luke and Melissa’s death. She will likely survive her injuries, return to Savannah and lead the effort to rescue Zack. She may also expose Crystal as the real murderer, clearing Max’s name after his death. However, Anna could still face legal consequences for planting drugs in Max’s home and hiding parts of her relationship with him. Tom Bowden Tom remains in custody for Ray’s death, but Max’s involvement should eventually become clear. Tom will probably escape or receive temporary release before joining Anna at Cape Fear. His marriage may survive the immediate crisis, although Anna’s history with Max and the question of Natalie’s biological father will leave lasting damage. Natalie Bowden Natalie has finally recognised how Max and Nevaeh manipulated her. She took Nevaeh’s hidden phone before Noa secured her release, giving the family valuable evidence about Max’s plans. Natalie will likely help Noa trace Max and rescue Zack. She may also reject Max completely, regardless of whether his claim about being her biological father proves true. Zack Bowden Zack is in the greatest danger heading into the finale. Max has spent the season manipulating his mental health, religious beliefs and anger toward Tom. Zack may initially follow Max willingly before realising that he has been used. We expect him to survive, although the finale could leave him responsible for seriously injuring or killing someone during the rescue. Nevaeh Valentine Nevaeh failed to kill Natalie and lost the secret phone she used to communicate with Max. She will probably turn against Max after recognising that he views her as another disposable part of his revenge plan. She may confess, help investigators locate Zack or die while attempting to regain Max’s approval. Noa Toussaint Noa has become the Bowdens’ most reliable ally. She will likely use the phone Natalie stole to trace Max’s movements and lead the police toward Cape Fear. Her arrival could stop Anna from killing Max in cold blood, although Max may force Anna to act before help reaches them. Crystal and Luke Crystal will probably follow Anna after escaping the boat, bringing Luke into the final conflict. Max may kill Crystal after learning that she murdered Melissa and allowed him to remain imprisoned. Luke could attack Max or Crystal after discovering the full truth about his parents. He may survive as the final reminder of the abuse and secrecy running through the Cady family. The Cape Fear finale has several mysteries left to answer, including Zack’s location, Natalie’s paternity and Max’s ultimate fate. What do you think will happen when the Bowdens and Cadys meet for the final time? Let us know in the comments.

v2.1.219

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:18:36 +0200

What's changed

Added Claude Opus 5 (claude-opus-5), now the default Opus model — 1M context, fast mode at $10/$50 per Mtok
Added sandbox.network.strictAllowlist setting to deny non-allowlisted hosts for sandboxed commands without prompting
Added DirectoryAdded hook that fires after /add-dir or the SDK register_repo_root control request registers a new working directory mid-session
Added mcp_server_errors to the headless stream-json init event, listing --mcp-config entries skipped by config validation; terminal runs print a startup warning
Added the workflowSizeGuideline settings key so the advisory Dynamic workflow size guideline can be set from any settings file; the /config row is hidden while one does
Added nested subagent forwarding in stream-json: subagents spawned at depth-2+ now appear when --forward-subagent-text is set, keyed by their spawning Agent tool_use id
Fixed claude -p text output dropping the answer already produced when a turn dies on a mid-stream API error
Added HTTP status and error text to claude mcp list and /mcp when a server fails to connect, and a warning for MCP config values with hidden leading or trailing whitespace
Fixed a permission you approved while a self-hosted runner was restarting being dropped when the session resumed, so the approved action now runs
Fixed the Fable model row showing "Requires usage credits" for plans that include it, when a stale cache had baked the label in
Fixed a SIGTERM arriving while a self-hosted runner was starting up leaving a stale active row until the lease expired; it now deregisters cleanly
Added structured failure categories to self-hosted runner spawn and session failures, so hook errors, runner crashes and config errors can be told apart
Fixed the /model picker showing the merged Opus row as plain "Opus" instead of "Opus (1M context)"
Fixed copy-on-select inside GNU screen printing base64 into the terminal instead of copying the selection
Fixed Remote Control clients keeping a stale fast-mode status after a model switch, reconnect, or failed org check
Fixed CLAUDE_CODE_GIT_BASH_PATH on Windows exiting or being used as bash when the path isn't a bash/sh binary; it's now ignored with a warning
Fixed Vim mode: pressing ← on an empty prompt now returns to the agent view from NORMAL mode, not just INSERT
Fixed screen-reader mode rewriting the entire input line on every keystroke instead of echoing only the typed character
Improved the "Remote Control is only available via api.anthropic.com" error to name the specific setting that caused it
Improved claude --teleport to show which repo your current checkout points at when it doesn't match the session's repo
Changed dynamic workflows to default to a medium size guideline (aim for fewer than 15 agents); pick another size or unrestricted with Dynamic workflow size in /config
Changed managed MCP allowlist/denylist ${VAR} entries to resolve from the startup environment and managed-settings env instead of settings-file env
Changed the /model picker to highlight only the newest model's name, so the highlight marks the new release rather than an arbitrary subset of the list
Added the current default workflow size to the running-workflow status line, with a pointer to /config for changing it
Removed Opus 4.7 from fast mode; /fast now applies to Opus 5 and Opus 4.8
Updated the claude-api skill to default to Claude Opus 5, with a migration path from Opus 4.8
Subagents can now spawn nested subagents up to depth 3 by default (was 1); set CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_SUBAGENT_SPAWN_DEPTH=1 to disable nesting

Sam Altman’s biometric startup World raises $52.5 million via crypto sale

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:21:05 +0200

Sam Altman's side project — which seeks to scan the world's eyeballs and turn them into unique digital identifiers — has raised some fresh cash through a crypto sale.

Judge approves Apple's $250 million settlement offer over Siri lawsuit

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:50:14 +0200

A lawsuit over Apple's failure to deliver Apple Intelligence and Siri features is moving closer to a conclusion as a judge has provisionally approved the company's settlement offer.

Apple has settled a class-action lawsuit over its delayed Siri features.

The class action suit filed in 2025 alleged that people had bought new iPhones expressly because of Apple's promoting of Apple Intelligence features that it then did not deliver. Apple admitted in March 2025 that the new Siri features were delayed, but then in May 2025 offered a settlement.

Apple and the parties to the class action suit agreed to a $250 million settlement, but it had to be approved. Now in a filing in the US District Court, Northern District of California, judge Noel Wise has provisionally given approval.

Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

New U.S. tariffs hit Apple's supply chain, with no clear exemptions

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 16:55:54 +0200

The United States has chosen to apply new 10% tariffs to goods imported from a total of 60 countries, including the countries where nearly every iPhone and Mac are assembled.

Apple's supply chain may be impacted by new tariffs. Image credit: Intel

The new tariffs went into effect on Friday, July 24, 2026. They come into force as a 10% blanket import tax imposed by the Trump administration lapsed following a Supreme Court ruling that it was unlawful.

The new action follows a months-long investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative into the possible use of forced labor in the production of goods in 60 countries.

Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

Turn your old notes and journals into a book with this AI tool

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:33:05 +0200

Concepts of a Book AI Book Architect gives you a structured way to turn your manuscripts into an actual book.

(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)

Hide My Email, Apple Upgrade, and mass iPhone 18 Pro production, on the AppleInsider Podcast

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:12:59 +0200

The Hide My Email failure is real but nowhere near as significant to users as it's being portrayed, Apple is hiking so many prices yet looking at ways to make that palatable, plus Foxconn has begun its annual recruitment drive as it begins producing millions of new iPhones, all on the AppleInsider Podcast.

There was an issue with Hide My Email.

It's been painted as a big security failing by Apple, and it definitely isn't good. But even if someone does manage to circumvent your use of Hide My Email, the worst they can do is send you a spam message.

There's more to it, of course, and if there weren't then you wouldn't benefit from listening to Wesley Hilliard explaining it on the podcast. But while it's good to know the background, not to mention interesting, you can be reassured too.

Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

ChonkyChicken Malware Steals Chrome Credentials, Moves Laterally and Spies on Victims

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:10:27 +0200

The post ChonkyChicken Malware Steals Chrome Credentials, Moves Laterally and Spies on Victims appeared first on IT Security News.

ChonkyChicken Malware Steals Chrome Credentials, Moves Laterally and Spies on Victims

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:42:01 +0200

ChonkyChicken is a newly identified remote access trojan designed to turn one infected Windows device into a platform for credential theft, network movement, and surveillance. The malware is part of the TAG-195, also called Golden Chickens or Venom Spider, malware-as-a-service ecosystem, which supplies tooling to financially motivated criminal operators. Recent campaigns begin with ClickFix lures, […]

The post ChonkyChicken Malware Steals Chrome Credentials, Moves Laterally and Spies on Victims appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Industry Reactions to OpenAI Models Hacking Hugging Face: Feedback Friday

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:41:55 +0200

Industry professionals debate whether it represents a lab containment failure or an unprecedented agentic capability milestone. The post Industry Reactions to OpenAI Models Hacking Hugging Face: Feedback Friday appeared first on SecurityWeek. This article has been indexed from SecurityWeek Read…

The post Industry Reactions to OpenAI Models Hacking Hugging Face: Feedback Friday appeared first on IT Security News.

Industry Reactions to OpenAI Models Hacking Hugging Face: Feedback Friday

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:26:04 +0200

Industry professionals debate whether it represents a lab containment failure or an unprecedented agentic capability milestone.

The post Industry Reactions to OpenAI Models Hacking Hugging Face: Feedback Friday appeared first on SecurityWeek.

3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:02 +0200

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
More products create more complexity.
More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
More alerts require more analysts.
More analysts produce more reports.
More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
Software supply chain complexity.
Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography