Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The post Sakana AI Releases Fugu-Cyber: An Orchestration Model Reporting 86.9% on CyberGym and 72.1% on CTI-REALM appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

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

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:

* 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!

Adobe Patches for March 2026

For March, Adobe released eight bulletins addressing 80 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, Commerce, Illustrator, Substance 3D Painter, Premier Pro, Experience Manager, Substance 3D Stager, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). Two of these bugs were submitted through the TrendAI ZDI program. If you need to prioritize, the update for Acrobat likely has the most impact, with the patch fixing two Critical-rated and one Important bugs. The fix for Experience Manager is the largest this month with 33 CVEs addressed. However, these are simple cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs, so it’s not too exciting. The fix for Commerce is also quite large with 19 CVEs. Most of these are also XSS bugs, but there’s a few security feature bypass bugs in there, too. Adobe actually gives this patch a deployment priority of 2, but it’s not under active attack at the time of release.

The fix for Illustrator corrects seven bugs, including a few Critical-rated ones. The patch for Substance 3D Painter fixes nine different CVEs, all rated Important. That’s not the case for Substance 3D Stager, which fixes six different Critical bugs that could lead to arbitrary code execution. The patch for the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK) addresses one Critical and one Important bug. Finally, the update for Premiere Pro correct a single, Critical-rated bug that could lead to arbitrary code execution.

None of the bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, and beyond the update for Commerce, all of the other updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.

Microsoft Patches for March 2026

This month, Microsoft released 84 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, SQL Server, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Resilient File System (ReFS). Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings to total number of CVEs to 94. Five of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. Eight of these bugs are rated Critical, and the rest are rated Important in severity.

This volume is relatively typical for a March release, and the lack of bugs under active attack is a nice change from last month. There are two vulnerabilities listed as publicly known at the time of release, but none listed as actively exploited.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a bug with an AI slant:

-    CVE-2026-26144 - Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability
This is a fascinating bug and an attack scenario we’re likely to see more often. The vulnerability is a simple cross-site scripting (XSS) bug in Excel, but an attacker could use it to cause the Copilot Agent to exfiltrate data off the target. This essentially makes it a zero-click information disclosure. Although not stated, the disclosure is likely at the level of the logged-on user, so there isn’t a privilege escalation component. Info disclosures rarely get rated Critical, but it makes sense here.

-    CVE-2026-26110/CVE-2026-26113 - Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Another month and another pair of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an exploit vector. I’ve lost count of how many of these bugs have been patched over the last year, but it’s just a matter of time until they start appearing in active exploits. The latest versions of Outlook allow you to hide the Preview Pane, but it isn’t clear if this would mitigate these attacks. The best option is still to test and deploy the update, but considering how many of these patches exist, it’s likely further updates will be needed to fully address these issues.

-    CVE-2026-23669 - Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Just reading the title makes me twitch with remembrances of Print Nightmare from a few years ago. This bug works in the same manner as those exploits. An authenticated attacker sends specially crafted messages to an affected system to gain arbitrary code execution. No user interaction is required. Let’s hope we don’t end up in a new nightmare of spooler exploits. Test and deploy this one quickly.

-    CVE-2026-23668 - Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This vulnerability was submitted to the ZDI program by Marcin Wiązowski as two separate bugs, and it demonstrates the need for variant investigations when creating security patches. Both cases are caused by the lack of proper locking when performing operations on an object. However, in one case, it’s in the cdd.dll driver while the other is in the win32kfull driver. Either way, an attacker could use these to elevate privileges to SYSTEM and execute arbitrary code. Since the fix for both is to add object locking to the GDI object, the cases are combined into a single CVE. That’s not a problem, but it does show how variants can occur, and fixes should be as broad as possible.

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

* 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.

Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, they are all cloud-native and require no user action. Microsoft has already remediated the vulnerabilities.

Moving on to the other code execution bugs, the vulnerabilities in SharePoint Server pop out first. Both require authentication, but it’s essentially the lowest level of authentication, so these would be ideal cases for lateral movement within an enterprise. There are the standard open-and-own cases within Office components. There an interesting sounding bug in the Windows Mobile Broadband Driver that requires physical access, but Microsoft doesn’t elaborate on the attack scenario beyond that fact. The bug in the System Image Manager Assessment and Deployment Kit (ADK) requires authentication. The bug in GDI requires user interaction. The remaining code execution bugs are in the RRAS protocol. We’ve seen bugs in this component in the past, but never in the wild. I wouldn’t ignore these, but I wouldn’t rush them out either.

Similar to last month, updates for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly half of this month’s release. And as we saw last month, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. The bugs in SQL Server allow attackers to elevate to SQL sysadmin privileges. The bug in the Azure MCP Server is more complex. It allows attackers to obtain the permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity, which lets them perform actions that the managed identity is able to reach. The bug in the Azure AD SSH Login extension for Linux leads to root access, and it won’t be easy to patch. You’ll need to run the update instructions from the command line on each affected system. That’s the same case for the bug in the Linux Azure Diagnostic extension (LAD). There’s an odd bug in the Hybrid Worker Extension (Arc‑enabled Windows VMs) that leads to “ELEVATED” privileges, which is something I’ve never seen before. The bug in the Broadcast DVR component allows an attacker to go from low integrity level up to medium. There’s a bug listed as an EoP in the Push message Routing Service, but reading the description, Microsoft notes it could lead to an information disclosure. It’s likely this is an error and should be an Information Disclosure bug. The final EoP is in the Azure Portal Windows Admin Center and leads to SYSTEM. However, there’s no patch to remediate this bug. Instead, you need to install the latest version of the Windows Admin Center extension through the Azure Portal by hand.

There are two security feature bypass patches in the March release. The first is a bypass of the MapURLToZone method, which (as expected) allows attackers to bypass MapURLToZone protections. The third bypass is in Kerberos and could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or make changes to “disclosed” information. This is a race condition that occurs while the group policy is being reapplied, so the window to exploit this would be extremely small.

Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, only two result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. Ther others provide more interesting results. There are three bugs in the Azure IoT Explorer have some wide-ranging implications. According to Microsoft, exploitation could result in, “device connection information, authentication tokens, request data, file paths, and other information transmitted between the application and the IoT Hub.” The bug in Authenticator almost reads like a security feature bypass, as exploit results in the disclosure of a one‑time sign‑in code or authentication deep link. The attacker would receive the sign‑in information and could potentially use it to authenticate as the user, allowing access to information or services available to that account. The last info disclosure bug is in the Accessibility Infrastructure and allows an attacker to gain secrets or privileged information belonging to the user of the affected application.

There are only four spoofing bugs in the March release. The first is in SharePoint server and manifests as an XSS. The second bug is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the Azure IoT Explorer. The remaining two are a bit more cryptic. The bug in Windows Shell Link Processing results from the “exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor,” and could lead to spoofing. That sounds like credential exposure, but it’s not explicitly called out. The final spoofing bug results from the insufficient verification of data authenticity in Windows App Installer. Again, this sounds vaguely like credential reflection, but without further information, we can only speculate.

Finally, there are four denial-of-service (DoS) bugs in the release, including one that’s listed as publicly known in the .NET Framework. As usual, Microsoft provides no actionable information about these bugs.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

I plan on being at RSA for the first time in my career, so if you’re around, please stop by and say hello. I like it when people say hello. Otherwise, I’ll be back on April 14 with my assessment of that patch Tuesday release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

• UK politics live – latest updates

MPs have warned that an NHS decision to grant Palantir access to identifiable patient information in its plan to use AI to improve the health service is “dangerous” and will fuel public fears that data privacy is not being prioritised.

NHS England has allowed staff from the US tech firm and other contractors to access patient data before it has been pseudonymised, despite internal fears of a “risk of loss of public confidence”, the Financial Times reported.

Es gibt neue Details zum weitreichenden Sicherheitsvorfall rund um OpenAI und Hugging Face, worüber wir an dieser Stelle bereits berichtet haben. Wie ZDFheute unter Berufung auf Reuters nun verkündet, kam es bei insgesamt zwei KI-Modellen – neben dem aktuellen GPT-5.6 Sol einem weiteren Vorabmodell – über mehrere Tage zu einem vollständigen Kontrollverlust bei OpenAI. Hugging […]

Der Beitrag OpenAI: KI-Cybervorfall ruft FBI und Sicherheitsforscher auf den Plan erschien zuerst auf Dr. Windows.

Posted by Paul Feng, Vice President, Google Play Eng, Product, UX

More billing flexibility

Lower, separate fees

 

• New installs: A transaction from a user whose first-time install or first update of the app from Google Play occurred on or after the date that the new fee structure launched in their region.
• Existing installs: A transaction from a user whose first-time install or first update of the app from Google Play occurred before the date that the new fee structure launches in their market.

For transactions that use Google Play’s billing system, an additional billing fee applies. In the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area, the billing fee is set at 5%. We'll announce billing fee details for other markets soon. For transactions processed via alternative billing or external web links, the billing fee does not apply.

Review this Help Center article to understand how these rates apply to your business.

Games Level Up and Apps Experience program guidelines

We are also excited to announce even more opportunities for partners who deliver exceptional user experiences across the Android ecosystem: the revamped Games Level Up and the new Apps Experience program. Detailed guidelines are now available on the respective program websites.

Apps and games that meet all requirements are eligible for a new program rate card with reduced rates. See the table below for details:

Visit the Games Level Up and Apps Experience program websites, review the guidelines, and start preparing your games and apps ahead of September 30, 2026, when the program rate cards officially become available.

Global release schedule

Evolving our business model requires technical infrastructure and alignment with local regulations, so these updates will roll out on a staggered timeline. To help you plan, here is the previously announced release schedule for each update across all markets:

Here is a quick recap of the resources available to help you get started:

• Review the billing choice program;
• Learn more about Google Play's lower service fees;
• Explore detailed guidelines on the Games Level Up and Apps Experience program websites.

We look forward to building the next generation of Google Play experiences together.

Posted by Amman Asfaw, Product Manager, Android Studio

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

Here’s a deep dive into what’s new:

Multi-tasking with parallel chats

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

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

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

Memory leak detection with LeakCanary

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

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

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

Once a leak is detected during a profiling session:

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

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

App Quality Insights agent integration

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

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

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

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

Quality & stability improvements

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

Get Started

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

Welcome back to the blog post series "Build intelligent Android apps" where we take a basic Android app and transform it into a personalized, intelligent, and agentic experience. In our previous post we explored how to build intelligent on-device features using Gemini Nano through ML Kit's Prompt API.

In this post, we will look at how you can leverage Firebase AI Logic to build cloud-hosted and hybrid AI features: 

• Grounding answers in real-world context
• Routing requests dynamically between cloud and local execution using hybrid inference
• Translating content with custom routing systems

Sometimes a use case requires AI models with greater world knowledge, a much larger context window, or the ability to handle complex queries. In those scenarios, we can leverage cloud models. 

Other times, you want the best of both worlds: using hybrid inference to run on-device when available to lower costs, while falling back to the cloud to ensure compatibility for all devices.

Cloud and hybrid features in Jetpacker: Museum assistant with web grounding, hybrid restaurant review drafting, and  support chat featuring custom-routed live translation.

Let’s look at how we implemented three cloud and hybrid features in Jetpacker:

• a museum assistant with web grounding
• hybrid restaurant review drafting
• hotel support chat featuring custom-routed live translation.

Use LLM grounding for up-to-date informationMuseum assistant chatbot with LLM grounding

The Museum assistant is an interactive chatbot designed to help users plan their museum visits. It provides visitors with up-to-date details regarding specific exhibits, current opening hours, ticket pricing, and more.

Museum assistant is a chatbot that answers questions, such as 

When building AI features, getting the model to answer with fresh, accurate, and specific real-world information is a common challenge. While cloud models possess massive amounts of world knowledge, they might not know about seasonal exhibits or the current day’s opening hours. 

Grounding data is added to the context window to enable the model

To bridge this gap, we can use grounding techniques to add extra context to the model’s context window. The Firebase AI Logic SDK supports three types of grounding:

• URL grounding: Grounding responses using content from a specific webpage (e.g. current ticket prices or museum rules).
• Google Search grounding: Letting the model query the real-time Google search index for up-to-date details.
• Maps grounding: Using Google Maps location data.

In Jetpacker, we dynamically construct the available tools based on enabled feature flags and initialize the generative model using the Firebase AI SDK:

// implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-ai-logic")

private var toolList = mutableListOf<Tool>()

init {
    if (ENABLE_SEARCH_GROUNDING) {
        toolList.add(Tool.googleSearch())
    }
    if (ENABLE_URL_GROUNDING) {
        toolList.add(Tool.urlContext())
    }
}

private val generativeModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash",
        systemInstruction = content {
            text("You are a helpful museum assistant answering questions about a museum. Use plain text.")
        },
        tools = toolList
    )

When the user queries the assistant, if URL grounding is enabled, we append the specific museum resource URLs directly into the prompt:

val groundingText = if (FeatureFlags.ENABLE_URL_GROUNDING) {
    "\n If the following message above is about the rules and terms to visit Le Louvre, " +
    "if needed answer this urls ${urlList.joinToString()}"
} else {
    ""
}

val prompt = "$text $groundingText"

var response = chat.sendMessage(prompt)

Hybrid inference: On-device review generation with Maps deep link

Not every AI task requires a cloud-based model, and not every device is online. To help developers balance latency, cost, and offline availability, we recently introduced the Firebase API for Hybrid Inference.

In Jetpacker, the restaurant review feature lets users review select topics and automatically drafts a review. To enable this for all users, we prioritize local execution with Gemini Nano, and fall back to cloud models on devices that don’t support Gemini Nano. 

// implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-ai-logic")
// implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-ai-ondevice:16.0.0-beta03")


// Initialize the model with hybrid routing configuration
val reviewModel = Firebase.ai.generativeModel(
    modelName = "gemini-3.1-flash-lite",
    onDeviceConfig = OnDeviceConfig(
        inferenceMode = InferenceMode.PREFER_ON_DEVICE
    )
)

The Hybrid Inference API supports four distinct routing modes:

• PREFER_ON_DEVICE: Prioritizes local execution and falls back to cloud if Gemini Nano is unavailable.
• PREFER_IN_CLOUD: Prioritizes cloud execution and falls back to on-device if the device goes offline.
• ONLY_ON_DEVICE: Restricts execution strictly to the device.
• ONLY_IN_CLOUD: Restricts execution strictly to the cloud.

Once the review is generated, we copy it to the clipboard and use an intent to open Google Maps directly to the restaurant's review page, providing a seamless user experience:

private fun copyAndOpenMapsReview(context: Context, reviewText: String, placeId: String) {
    val clipboard = context.getSystemService(Context.CLIPBOARD_SERVICE) as ClipboardManager
    val clip = ClipData.newPlainText("User Review", reviewText)
    clipboard.setPrimaryClip(clip)

    val uri = Uri.parse("https://search.google.com/local/writereview/mobile?placeid=$placeId")
    val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, uri).apply {
        setPackage("com.google.android.apps.maps")
    }
    context.startActivity(intent)
}

Custom hybrid routing: Hotel support chat translation with simulated personas

The hotel support chat was built to let users finalize logistics and check on hotel details. This feature uses system instructions to configure a localized receptionist assistant. By passing specific information—such as the preferred language and hotel information—in the instructions, we can set up a conversational persona representing a specific hotel.

private val generativeModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        systemInstruction = content {
            text("""
              You are a helpful hotel receptionist at $hotelName only speaking $language. 
              Answer politely in $language. The bar closes at 10pm and breakfast is from 7am to 10am.
              There's someone at the desk 24/7. You can retrieve your luggage from the storage room 
              at the back of the lobby at any time.
              """)
        },
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash-preview"
    )

Because receptionist responses are in the hotel's local language (for example, French for Hotel Le Meurice in Paris), we need to translate messages to the user’s preferred language. 

Hotel support chat messages are automatically translated to the user’s preferred language 

While hybrid models can configure simple routing preferences, complex scenarios require custom routing logic. In Jetpacker, we implement a custom routing stack that takes into account:

• Language identification: Using the on-device ML Kit Language Identification API, we can detect the incoming message language.
• On-device translation (Gemini Nano): ML Kit’s Prompt API lets us translate common language pairs directly on the device, saving bandwidth and cloud cost.
• Cloud translation (Gemini 3 Flash): For more complex languages, we use Gemini Flash 3 to get a higher quality translation.

// implementation("com.google.android.gms:play-services-mlkit-language-id:17.0.0") 

// ML Kit for Language Identification (powered by Google Play Services)
private val languageIdentifier = LanguageIdentification.getClient()

// On-device translator model (prefer Gemini Nano) for translating common language pairs
private val hybridTranslationModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash",
        onDeviceConfig = OnDeviceConfig(mode = InferenceMode.PREFER_ON_DEVICE)
    )

// Cloud translator model for more complex language pairs
private val cloudTranslationModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash"
    )

When a message needs to be translated, we identify the source language and apply our custom routing logic, executing either on-device or cloud translation:

fun translateMessage(message: SupportChatMessage) {
    viewModelScope.launch {
        // 1. Detect language using ML Kit Language Identification
        val sourceLang = try {
            Tasks.await(languageIdentifier.identifyLanguage(message.text))
        } catch (e: Exception) {
            "Undefined"
        }

        // 2. Custom routing: we've verified the translation quality for English and Korean with Gemini Nano, and will translate message on-device for those two languages
        val routeToCloud = sourceLang != "en" && sourceLang != "kr"

        val prompt = "Translate the following text to $selectedLanguage. Just return the translated sentence: ${message.text}."

        val (translatedText, routePrefix) = if (routeToCloud) {
            val result = cloudTranslationModel.generateContent(prompt)
            result.text to "[Cloud]"
        } else {
            val result = hybridTranslationModel.generateContent(prompt)
            result.text to "[On-Device]"
        }

        if (translatedText != null) {
            _translations.update { current ->
                current + (message.id to "$routePrefix: $translatedText")
            }
        }
    }
}

In this example, the custom routing logic only takes into consideration the translation’s source and target language. However, based on your app’s use case, you can expand the routing logic to include other factors such as the on-device model version, network connectivity, battery status, and more.

Securing the AI Pipelines: Firebase App Check

Lastly, using AI in the cloud opens up possibilities of API key abuse or unauthorized billing. To secure API calls, we integrated Firebase App Check using both Play Integrity (production) and the local Debug Provider (for local development or emulators).

In the JetPackerApplication.kt file, we install the debug provider at startup and trigger anonymous authentication to establish a secure user session:

//  implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-appcheck-playintegrity") 
//  implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-appcheck-debug")  
//  implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-auth") 

override fun onCreate() {
    super.onCreate()
    Firebase.initialize(context = this)
    Firebase.appCheck.installAppCheckProviderFactory(
        DebugAppCheckProviderFactory.getInstance()
    )
    Firebase.auth.signInAnonymously()
}

When building locally on an emulator, App Check prints a local token secret to logcat:

Enter this debug secret into the allow list in the Firebase Console: a8c2dd4c-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-ef6c114ba27e

Once registered in the Firebase console, local requests are fully verified and authenticated by App Check, protecting our backend while letting us test the app locally.

Conclusion

By combining cloud model capabilities (grounding, system instructions) with on-device capabilities (hybrid routing, translation, security app checks), we created a travel app that is smart, secure, and available offline.

Check out the full source code for Jetpacker on GitHub, and explore the Firebase documentation to get started:

Firebase AI Logic Documentation
Firebase Hybrid Inference API

Learn more

Check out the other parts of this blog post series:

Part 1: Introduction of the app and a high-level overview.
Part 2: On-device intelligence. Deep-dive into ML Kit’s GenAI APIs and Gemini Nano to build privacy-first features like itinerary summarization, receipt parsing, and local audio processing.
Part 3 (this post!): Hybrid and cloud reasoning. Explore how to use Firebase AI Logic to ground LLM answers in real-world data like Google Maps and web context.
Part 4: System integration. Integrating with the Android intelligence system using AppFunctions. 
Part 5 (coming soon): In-app agentic workflows. Extend the app with an end-to-end booking assistant powered by A2UI and ADK.

Interested in more on Android Development? Follow Android Developers on YouTube or LinkedIn!

All code snippets in this blog post follow the following copyright notice:

Copyright 2026 Google LLC.
SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0

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:

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.

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:

1. Determine which hosts were compromised and isolate them by quarantining or taking them offline.
2. Initiate threat hunting activities to scope the intrusion. Collect and review artifacts, such as running processes/services, unusual authentications, and recent network connections.
3. Reimage compromised hosts.
4. Provision new account credentials.
5. Report the compromise to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA. See the Contact Information section of this advisory.
6. 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:

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

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

Resources

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

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

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

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

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer

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

Acknowledgements

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

Version History

December 09, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

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

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

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups

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

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

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

• The 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?</a></p> <p>

• 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

• Maxx Crawford added a pref to hide the New Tab logo so users can opt out of branding without altering page layout or resorting to CSS overrides.
• Harshit enabled video overlay detection in Nightly 153, allowing you to use the context menu to control videos on more pages! We plan on letting this ride out in Firefox 153.
  • You can try it out on this Instagram reel in Nightly

• A note to WebExtension authors – as part of a planned deprecation announced last month, executeScript and insertCSS are now restricted from moz-extension pages starting in Firefox 152 – Bug 2015559
• Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] added support and debugging for modern attr()(which is enabled on Nightly) (#2014751)

Friends of the Firefox team

Resolved bugs (excluding employees)

Script to find new contributors from bug list

Volunteers that fixed more than one bug

• Sam Johnson
• Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

• Immaculate Atim: Switch to using an array instead of an object string for browser.backup.enabled_on.profiles
• liz: Screenshots overlay visible on both splitview browsers
• 🌟 Rahman Mahmutović [:r_m]: Can’t change content in box model in inspector for box-sizing:border-box elements
• Takeru Mitsumori: Fix typo in ID name about-translations-swap-langauges-icon in about-translations.html
• 🌟 Freya Arbjerg [:freyacodes]: Blackboxed columns are ignored
•  tom.passarelli: tab-preview-panel emits unpaired popupshown/popuphidden events, breaking sidebar autohide

Project Updates

Add-ons / Web Extensions

Addon Manager & about:addons

• As part of the work for the Project Nova about:addons page restyling, the about:addons sidebar has been migrated to the moz-page-nav and moz-page-nav-button reusable components, improving accessibility and visual consistency with the Firefox Desktop about:settings page – Bug 1881767

WebExtensions Framework

• Implemented WebExtensions negative permissions infrastructure, providing the foundations for enterprise policy “blocked host permissions” features – Bug 1745823
• Restricted host permission changes for MV3 extensions force-installed via enterprise policy (matching similar behaviors provided by Chrome enterprise policy behaviors) – Bug 1904054
  • Thanks to Mike Kaply for the implementation of this enterprise policy enforcement feature.

WebExtension APIs

• Fixed handling of <all_urls> as an API permission in Manifest V3, ensuring the permission is correctly initialized on extension install – Bug 1758306

DevTools

• Rahman Mahmutović [:r_m] made it possible to edit width/height in the box model section of the Layout panel (#1717176)
• Sebastian Zartner [:sebo] improved toggling tools driving in-page highlighters (e.g. the Measuring) (#1262773)
• Sebastian Zartner [:sebo] added a setting to control visibility of HTML comments in the markup view (#1455294)
• Freya Arbjerg [:freyacodes] fixed an issue in script blackboxing (#2036767)
• Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau] replaced custom preference to log RDP messages with MOZ_LOG (#1622857)
• Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau] fixed retrieval of garbage collected script text content (#1758454)

WebDriver

• Sameem updated the “Take Element Screenshot” command from WebDriver Classic to crop screenshots of elements which exceed the viewport. This aligns with the specification and avoids errors when attempting to capture huge elements.
• Alexandra Borovova updated the events for new top-level browsing contexts: we will not send anymore “browsingContext.domContentLoaded” and “browsingContext.load” events for them, instead the “browsingContext.contextCreated” event will be sent when a tab is ready to be used. This is required to align with the expected per-spec behavior.
• Henrik Skupin landed a patch allowing geckodriver to gracefully shut down Firefox when geckodriver itself is terminated.
• Hiroyuki Ikezoe disabled Firefox’s “scroll axis lock” feature so WebDriver actions for wheel input devices can scroll in arbitrary directions when using pan gestures.

Lint, Docs and Workflow

• Added a rule to prevent new uses of Preferences.sys.mjs.
• The browser environment globals within ESLint have now been updated. These include Sanitizer, VideoFrame and a few other new ones.
• Temporal, and some other definitions have been added to TypeScript.

New Tab Page

• Much has happened in the last 2 weeks! Here’s a full bug list, and here are some highlights.
• Dre fixed the List widget that was creating a new list too eagerly on the New Tab Page (2033592) — prevents accidental list creation and improves the Lists UI reliability.
• Maxx Crawford fixed Weather widget small card layout issues with opt-in location options and an error message displayed, resolving card overflow and removing the spurious opt-in error so users see a compact Weather card and correct location prompts on New Tab.
• Reem Hamoui added key dates state to the Sports widget, enabling the Sports card to surface event deadlines/key-date highlights on New Tab so sports users see timely date info.
• Scott Downe added a manage widgets option to the New Tab nova widgets context menu, giving users a direct context-menu entry to open the widget management flow from any widget with Nova enabled.
• Scott Downe added a reusable Newtab widget base component to centralize lifecycle, focus/keyboard handling, DOM templates, and telemetry hooks, reducing duplication and making widget behavior more consistent; see Newtab widget base component.
• Dre converted per-widget expansion handling to a shared widget expansion handler to unify expand/collapse state management and prevent widgets from incorrectly retaining or losing expanded state; see Convert widget expansion handling to shared widget expansion.
• Nina Pypchenko [:nina-py] updated the Sports widget to populate the “follow teams” state from the /teams endpoint, so follow/unfollow toggles now reflect server-side subscriptions and reduce incorrect follow states.
• Scott Downe moved widget menu items within New Tab widgets to standardize menu ordering and action grouping, so users find Add/Remove/Configure entries in expected positions across platforms.
• Dre fixed a World Clock city search bug for the word clocks widget, restoring expected search filtering/matching so city lookups return correct results.
• Scott Downe fixed an issue where the New Tab small weather widget size change didn’t always apply by correcting the widget size update path (JS/CSS layout interactions), improving consistent rendering for small-tile weather across responsive breakpoints and platforms; see Newtab small weather widget size change doesn’t always work.
• Nina Pypchenko [:nina-py] added a group stage section to match highlights in the sports widget on New Tab so users now see stage-aware grouping and stage labels on match highlight cards, making tournament context (group vs knockout) visible while browsing highlights.
• Dre fixed the small world clock widget not expanding to large while editing clocks so users can enter edit mode and expand the widget as expected; the change wires the edit-mode resize handler to update widget size/class during edits.
• Maxx Crawford added WCW OMC message strings so World Cup widget messaging flows on New Tab now display the correct copy (localized where available) instead of falling back to missing-text behavior.
• Reem Hamoui added a “View all” button and a list view for the results tab at medium widget size so Sports widget users on medium New Tab tiles can expand results and scroll full lists without resizing the widget.
• Maxx Crawford added WCW “Watch Live” stream strings to the Sports widget strings bundle so the widget can surface a localized “Watch Live” CTA for applicable events.
• Dre restored VoiceOver reachability for Edit/Remove in World Clock on macOS so macOS VoiceOver users can now focus and activate clock Edit/Remove controls thanks to accessibility role/label and focus-order fixes.
• Maxx Crawford removed the persistent browser logo when all new-tab features (Top Sites, widgets, content feed) are disabled by adding a conditional render guard in the New Tab component, preventing an orphaned logo (2041033).
• Mike Conley added New Tab jest tests to the node tests Tier 1 CI job Run newtab jest tests as part of node tests Tier 1 job to catch regressions earlier in CI
• Irene Ni shipped multiple visual fixes for the Sports widget Sports widget – various visual fixes (spacing, truncation, icon alignment, clipping) to improve readability and layout on constrained viewports.

Picture-in-Picture

• kpatenio adjusted our YouTube site specific wrapper so that the URL bar toggle appears more reliably, especially when selecting videos from the YouTube search page.
• Thanks to Sylvestre for patching some bugs to prevent some spurious console errors!
• Niklas fixed captions on autopip videos failing to sync with the origin videos.

Performance Tools (aka Firefox Profiler)

• Firefox Profiler now has a CLI! We also added a profiler-analysis skill to the Firefox codebase. Once you capture a performance profile, you can ask Claude or an AI to analyze it by providing a link or local path. You can use it to analyze a performance regression or debug an issue if you have a profile at hand.
  • https://www.npmjs.com/package/@firefox-devtools/profiler-cli
  • You can install it with npm install -g @firefox-devtools/profiler-cli@latest

Search and Urlbar

Nova UI refresh

• Drew and Daisuke continued working on reorganizing styles and updating the urlbar for Nova.
• 2019154, 2019152, 2041501, 2040532

Suggest

• Drew landed several Suggest improvements: realtime suggestions colors, sports suggestions received World Cup tweaks, and online Suggest via OHTTP was enabled for eligible users in Firefox 153.
• 2040561, 2039753, 2035614, 2038843

Adaptive autofill

• James fixed soft-block counting to track autofill dismisses, rather than consecutive backspaces on the same autofill, and added telemetry to measure URLs reintegration after blocking.
• 2040819, 2037177

Quick actions

• Dharma created a new Firefox Labs quick action, fixed the Update action button, and re-enabled ScotchBonnet in some tests that were not updated yet.
• Caleb added Calculator support for certain unicode operators.
• 2023169, 1928635, 1923383, 2033861

Multi Context Address Bar

• Moritz continued refactoring the urlbar code: converted some of the js modules to not be system modules, fixed dynamic results templates, incorrect reuse of result rows, and keyboard shortcuts on the unified search button panel.
• 2039297, 2036095, 2039844, 2037933, 2030050

Other

• Marco, Drew and Daisuke fixed several intermittent test failures.
• 2038510, 2023908, 2011584, 1938142, 1971091

Search

• Mark removed old WebExtension-based search engines from the source tree, removed loading of search add-ons from resource://search-extensions/.
• Caleb fixed multiple documentation issues and added a test covering searches from a private window.
• 1904613, 2035878, 2037942, 2033545, 2005724

Places

• Marco removed some unnecessary database transactions, fixed the bookmarks panel folder dropdown on Windows, and resolved several intermittent test failures.
• Thanks to Sam Johnson who fixed the bookmark edit panel showing “mobile” instead of “Mobile Bookmarks”.
• 2039534, 1505800, 2008829, 2029541, 2035084

• Dao added a new Eyedropper quick action! Check it out by typing “color” or “eyedropper” in the URL bar (Bug 1803575) on Nightly.

• Henrik Skupin released geckodriver 0.37.0, which includes support for several new APIs and various bug fixes. See the release page for details.
• Starting from Firefox 153, access to local file: URLs is being restricted by default.
  • Extensions now require an explicit “Access local files on your computer” permission, separate from broad host permissions, that users must grant.
  • Extensions can call the extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess() API to determine whether they have been granted access to file: URLs (Bug 2034168).

Friends of the Firefox team

Resolved bugs (excluding employees)

Script to find new contributors from bug list

Volunteers that fixed more than one bug

• :Vincent
• Chris Vander Linden
• DrSeed
• Khalid AlHaddad
• Sam Johnson

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

• Francis :mckenfra: tld service for webextensions
• any1here: about:preferences#privacy is broken with MOZ_DATA_REPORTING false
• pullmana8: Fix protocol/Actor.js to throw an Error instead of an Actor
• RAN1: Firefox Crashes on Quit When Running Two Browsers With Separate Profiles

Project Updates

Accessibility

• Morgan added a new accessibility-specific, front-end review skill to mozilla central! 🎉 You can read about it, and learn how to use it in the accessibility review source docs.

Add-ons / Web Extensions

Addon Manager & about:addons

• Migrated addon-page-header and addon-card action buttons to the reusable moz-button web component as part of the ongoing Nova restyling of about:addons – Bug 2042200 / Bug 2042204
• Extended moz-page-nav-button with a forwarded title property to fix an accessibility issue where the component lacked a label in collapsed state; Landed in Firefox 153, and uplifted to Firefox 152 for about:settings which was already riding the 152 release train – Bug 2040971
• Fixed a shutdown-timing bug where a pending GMP update-check timer could fire after XPCOMShutdownThreads started, causing a pref write assertion; Fixed in Firefox 153 – Bug 2043803

WebExtensions Framework

• Fixed MV2 content scripts incorrectly injecting into guarded hosts because MozDocumentMatcher::MatchesURI was not consulting CheckGuarded when mCheckPermissions was false; Fixed in Firefox 153 – Bug 2041393
• Added support for accessing ObservableArray attributes (such as adoptedStyleSheets) from XrayWrappers and extension content scripts, unblocking extensions that rely on this Web API; Fixed in Firefox 153 – Bug 1751346
• Wired runtime_blocked_hosts and runtime_allowed_hosts enterprise policy settings through ExtensionSettings to allow administrators to restrict extension host permissions on managed devices, starting in Firefox 153 – Bug 1805205
  • Thanks to Mike Kaply for implementing this enterprise policy enhancement.

WebExtension APIs

• Fixed promiseTabWhenReady blocking indefinitely on discarded tabs, preventing cleanup of associated resources and potentially causing memory leaks; Fixed in Firefox 153 – Bug 1653876
• Fixed webNavigation.onCommitted being dispatched twice for cross-origin iframes loaded under Fission, caused by a redundant OnStateChange trigger firing in addition to OnLocationChange; Fixed in Firefox 153 – Bug 1750196

DevTools

• Chris Vander Linden made the Search input component shared as we plan to use it in the Netmonitor as well (#2019260, #2027580, #2027582)
• pullmana8 improved error management in the DevTools protocol (#2031735)
• Chris H-C :chutten removed Legacy Telemetry devtools instrumentation (#2039650)
• :glob ✱ fixed an issue in the Inspector where the swatch color for variable in @starting-style rule could have the wrong color (#2016778)
• Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] exposed heading level more clearly in the accessibility tree (#1588784) and in the accessibility highlighter (#2044904)

• Julian Descottes [:jdescottes] migrated the markup view to HTML (from XHTML) to fix an issue when editing the markup (CodeMirror 6 does not support XHTML) (#2028058)
• Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] fixed an issue in Netmonitor search where it could appear the the search stalled (#2042405)
• Hubert Boma Manilla (:bomsy) added more connection information (ECH, Delegated Credentials, OCSP, Private DNS, …) in Netmonitor Security tab (#2036404)

WebDriver

• Khalid AlHaddad improved the window manipulation commands in Marionette and WebDriver BiDi to allow individual window geometry properties, such as x, y, width, and height, to be adjusted independently.
• Khalid AlHaddad updated our codebase to use constants instead of hardcoded strings for all our session data types.
• Alexandra Borovova updated the “emulation.setLocaleOverride” command to also apply a locale emulation in dedicated and shared workers.
• Alexandra Borovova fixed a regression when there would be no “script.realmCreated” events after the cross-origin navigation.

Search and Urlbar

• Dharma updated context search actions to trigger search instead of entering search mode @ 1945080
• Daisuke and Drew worked on a lot of Nova updates, including ensuring Nova is tested @ 2041255, 2030183, 2019168, 2044849, 2033583
• Moritz has worked on several refactorings to allow the urlbar to be used in content @ 2039828, 2039298, 2041280
• Middle click paste replaces content was fixed by Moritz @ 2042893
• Michel added feature to show registrable domain on desktop after its implementation on mobile @ 1986161

If you have a previous version of Rust installed via rustup, you can get 1.97.0 with:

$ rustup update stable

If you don't have it already, you can get rustup from the appropriate page on our website, and check out the detailed release notes for 1.97.0.

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

What's in 1.97.0 stable

Symbol mangling v0 enabled by default

When Rust is compiled into object files and binaries, each item (functions, statics, etc) must have a globally unique "symbol" identifying it. To avoid conflicts when linking together different Rust programs, Rust mangles the original name of items to include additional context such as the module path, defining crate, generics, and more. Historically, this mangling was based on the Itanium ABI, also (sometimes) used by C++.

The new mangling scheme resolves a number of drawbacks from the previous one:

• Generic parameter instantiations preserve their values, rather than being tracked solely behind a hash
• Inconsistencies: not all parts used the Itanium ABI, meaning that custom demangling was still necessary

Since Rust 1.59, the compiler has supported opting into a Rust-specific mangling scheme via -Csymbol-mangling-version=v0. Since November 2025, this scheme has been enabled by default on nightly, and 1.97 is now enabling it on stable Rust. The legacy mangling scheme can only be enabled on nightly, and the current plan is to fully remove it.

See the previous blog post for more details.

Cargo support for denying warnings

It's common practice to deny warnings in CI. Historically, doing so is typically done through RUSTFLAGS=-Dwarnings. With Rust 1.97, Cargo controls how warnings interact with build success: either silencing them (via allow level), rendering without failing (default, warn), or denying them (via deny).

As a result of Cargo configuration determining the behavior, using this feature doesn't invalidate the underlying build cache, meaning that it's easy to temporarily opt-in. For example, if warnings are adding unwanted noise while working through fixing errors after a refactor, you can run CARGO_BUILD_WARNINGS=allow cargo check, temporarily silencing them.

In CI, jobs can instead set CARGO_BUILD_WARNINGS=deny to deny warnings. This can be combined with --keep-going to collect all errors and warnings rather than stopping on the first failing package.

See the documentation for more details.

Linker output no longer hidden by default

rustc invokes a linker on behalf of users. Historically, rustc has silenced linker output by default if the link completes successfully. This can mask real problems, though, so in Rust 1.97 we are enabling linker messages by default. These are emitted as a warning lint, for example:

warning: linker stderr: ignoring deprecated linker optimization setting '1'
  |
  = note: `#[warn(linker_messages)]` on by default

Common linker messages that have been diagnosed as false positives or intentional behavior are filtered out by rustc. Several defects have already been fixed as a result of no longer hiding this output on nightly.

Note that currently, linker_messages is a special lint that is not affected by the warnings lint group. This is intentional as rustc generally doesn't control linker output as precisely, and it's not uncommon for output to only appear on some platforms. If you are seeing what you think is a false positive output from the linker, please file an issue.

To silence the warning in the mean time, you can configure the lint level to allow. This can be done through Cargo.toml by adding a lints section like this:

[lints.rust]
linker_messages = "allow"

Stabilized APIs

• Default for RepeatN
• Copy for ffi::FromBytesUntilNulError
• Send for std::fs::File on UEFI
• <{integer}>::isolate_highest_one
• <{integer}>::isolate_lowest_one
• <{integer}>::highest_one
• <{integer}>::lowest_one
• <{uN}>::bit_width
• NonZero<{integer}>::isolate_highest_one
• NonZero<{integer}>::isolate_lowest_one
• NonZero<{integer}>::highest_one
• NonZero<{integer}>::lowest_one
• NonZero<{uN}>::bit_width

These previously stable APIs are now stable in const contexts:

• char::is_control

Other changes

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

Contributors to 1.97.0

Many people came together to create Rust 1.97.0. We couldn't have done it without all of you. Thanks!

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!

OSCP prep course: https://thexssrat.podia.com/uncle-rat-s-ultimate-oscp-prep-guide-and-course?coupon=DISCOUNT

Single coaching session: https://thexssrat.podia.com/coaching-session?coupon=DISCOUNT

12 week session: https://thexssrat.podia.com/zero-to-pwned-4-week-coaching-guides-bundle?coupon=DISCOUNT

900 endless bundle: https://thexssrat.podia.com/full-house-bundle-all-of-our-current-and-future-courses-in-one?coupon=DISCOUNT

Uncle rat's courses:
https://thexssrat.podia.com

Become a member of this channel to unlock special perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjBhClJ59W4hfUly51i11hg/join

You can now Buy me a block of cheese:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thexssrat

Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/TheXSSRat

Instagram:
thexssrat

Follow me on twitter to be notified when i release a new video:
https://twitter.com/theXSSrat

Come join our discord :D i hang out there often!
https://discord.gg/8rUtHj9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About this research

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

Stable release. The package surface has been stable for a long time; 1.0.0 makes that explicit.

⚠ BREAKING CHANGES

• voice: silenceTailBytes removed from ElevenLabsAgentAdapterOptions — no longer needed after the ElevenLabs SDK migration; remove from any adapter config.
• voice: ELEVENLABS_CONVAI_URL_TEMPLATE constant removed from public exports — construct the URL directly or read it from the SDK.
• voice: .url getter removed from public exports.

Features

• graduate to 1.0.0 (6379130)
• 1.0 release prep, stable classifiers and unstuck langwatch pins (#842) (616c506)

Code Refactoring

• voice: #707 follow-up cleanup bundle (#716) (e018d76)

Stable release. The package surface has been stable for a long time; 1.0.0 makes that explicit. The langwatch dependency floor moves to >=1.0.0,<2 (older caps resolved a June 2025 langwatch on every install).

Features

• graduate to 1.0.0 (24feea2)
• 1.0 release prep, stable classifiers and unstuck langwatch pins (#842) (616c506)

Bug Fixes

• judge: protect unbounded judge transcript for non-litellm agents (#837) (6604334)
• voice: bring recv_audio's keepalive hard-ceiling to Python (JS parity) (#832) (d61027c)

Code Refactoring

• voice: #707 follow-up cleanup bundle (#716) (e018d76)

This week, in addition to the usual links, app debuts, and recap of MacStories' articles and podcasts:

• Every Cloud Continues the Trend of Clever Weather Apps, by Jonathan
• A Pair of Pinning Pointers, by John

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.

Providing a public, open way to browse the anonymous, aggregated device data we collect was always part of the plan, and this preview is our first step toward it.

You can already use it to search and filter devices to see aggregated community insights, starting with a deliberately focused set of specifics, such as whether a device requires an internet connection, and which protocols and integrations it works with. We've kept that initial scope narrow on purpose, giving us a solid foundation we can build on together with you, our community, as the database grows.

LWN looked at Home Assistant in May 2025.

Ein weiterer Rückschlag für den deutschen Batteriehersteller Varta: Wie die FAZ berichtet, habe der Konzern die Ziele der Investoren nicht erreicht und soll nun zerschlagen werden.

Vier Hauptgläubiger, darunter die Deutsche Bank und drei britische Investmentfonds, machen von ihren Rechten Gebrauch und beschließen, den weiterhin lukrativen Geschäftsbereich Haushaltsbatterien auszugliedern. Ursache für den Rückzug der Gläubiger sei ein „operativer Liquiditätsbedarf im mittleren zweistelligen Millionenbereich“, den die Anteilseigner nicht mehr bereit waren, zusätzlich zu investieren, erklären sie.

Varta war 2022 in die finanzielle Schieflage geraten, nachdem Apple, der größte Kunde, das Unternehmen als einzigen Hersteller von Airpods-Akkus um einen zweiten Zulieferer aus China ergänzt hatte. 2025 hörte Apple dann endgültig auf, Akkus von Varta zu beziehen. Dadurch brachen finanzielle Mittel weg, mit denen der Konzern, der dem österreichischen Unternehmer Michael Tojner und Porsche gehört, die Sanierung bewältigen wollte.

Noch ist die Zerschlagung von Varta jedoch nicht besiegelt: Der Schweizer Investor Allswiss hatte im Juni angeboten, die Schulden zu übernehmen „und den Hersteller zu stabilisieren“, wie die FAZ fortführt. Vom Verkauf der Haushaltssparte ist er wenig begeistert und wirft der Deutschen Bank und den britischen Investoren vor, Varta „nicht verkaufen, sondern verwerten“ zu wollen, „auf Kosten des Unternehmens, seiner Beschäftigten und der übrigen Gläubiger“.

Allswiss habe der Gläubigergruppe eine Frist bis Freitag (heute) gesetzt, die Zerschlagung unzustellen und Bedingungen für eine Übernahme durch Allswiss mitzuteilen. Auch die Länder Baden-Württemberg und Saarland haben sich inzwischen als Ziel gesetzt, Varta als Ganzes zu erhalten.

Den Haupteigentümer Tojner wundert der Plan der Gläubiger indes nicht, erklärt er der Augsburger Allgemeinen. Den Rest des Unternehmens, der nach dem Verkauf der Sparte für Haushaltsbatterien übrig bliebe, will er sanieren und „in Nischenbereichen“ positionieren.

The post What Hungary’s Anti-Corruption Election Can Teach U.S. Democracy Advocates appeared first on Just Security.

The company announced that GPT-Live now powers the ChatGPT desktop application on macOS and Windows, integrating directly with agentic systems like Codex and ChatGPT Work (which are separate experiences available in the ChatGPT desktop app).

When OpenAI initially launched GPT-Live on July 8, 2026, it introduced a continuous audio model capable of listening and speaking simultaneously—eliminating rigid turn-taking while delegating complex reasoning to background models like GPT-5.5.

Today's release expands that conversational layer to technical tasks, enabling software engineers to orchestrate multi-threaded coding jobs, review pull requests, and debug applications using natural voice commands.

As such, it could usher in a new era of "hands free" software development and even live, in-person group coding parties for Codex's more than 5 million weekly active users. Codex, of course, is the name given to OpenAI's models and harness focused on coding, but which the company has this year expanded into a more general productivity platform. An OpenAI spokesperson told VentureBeat this is the first time voice activation has been included natively with Codex on the desktop.

OpenAI posted a promotional video showing some of its employees, Codex developer experience engineer Jason Liu and Codex technical staffer Guinness Chen, speaking to the same ChatGPT desktop app session in the same room, each issuing different instructions and conversing with the same model.

New capabilities unlocked

At its core, this integration relies on decoupling the real-time voice layer from the underlying execution engines.

While GPT-Live maintains fluid conversation—inserting natural verbal acknowledgments like "got it" without interrupting the user—it passes heavy computational workloads to background reasoning models.

On macOS, the desktop application incorporates "Appshots" and screen context features, allowing ChatGPT Voice to analyze the frontmost window alongside local files, codebase structures, and active plugins.

This architecture creates a pair-programming dynamic where developers talk through problems conversationally while agents execute tasks asynchronously.

Rather than manually stopping coding sessions to type detailed instructions or switch windows, developers direct the system hands-free.

The full-duplex engine dynamically decides when to speak, pause, or invoke tools, maintaining conversational state even as background agents process complex code modifications.

Directing coding and complex builds with your voice alone

The central operational capability in this update centers on multi-task execution across Codex and ChatGPT Work environments.

Software engineers can initiate multiple concurrent task threads from a single spoken prompt. For instance, a developer preparing to ship a feature can instruct the system to investigate an open authentication bug, review a pending API migration pull request, and generate missing unit tests simultaneously.

The desktop application coordinates these actions across disparate contexts, tracing issues through Slack conversations, GitHub repositories, and local codebases.

Developers can also verbally convert design mockups into working code, splitting tasks across frontend, backend, and testing layers.

With support for multi-folder projects (build 26.715) and remote execution via iOS, engineers can check task progress, answer agent prompts, and redirect active jobs without switching applications or managing individual processes line by line.

Proprietary license

OpenAI’s voice-enabled desktop release operates under a proprietary, commercial enterprise model. Access is restricted to paid subscribers across Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Education plans.

For individual developers and corporate engineering departments, this commercial structure means the model weights, voice processing pipelines, and agent state architectures remain fully closed.

Organizations cannot modify or self-host the underlying systems. Furthermore, tasks initiated via ChatGPT Voice consume standard usage allocations directly from existing Codex and ChatGPT Work plan quotas, treating voice-triggered actions identically to standard agentic workloads.

Community reactions

Developer communities immediately noted the implications of bringing continuous full-duplex voice to autonomous coding workflows.

Reacting to the build 26.715 release announcement—which details voice integration and multi-folder project support—AI Insider journalist @ChrisGPT noted on X: "Today OpenAI will release voice and remote guidance for codex ! One step closer to personal AGI".

Early technical feedback highlights widespread enthusiasm for orchestrating complex agentic tasks hands-free, particularly when stepping away from the workstation or managing build pipelines remotely.

“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.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise agent orchestration: which platforms enterprises run on, what drives the choice, what they optimize for, how they expect agent control to be structured, and — most revealingly — how orchestrated their deployed “agents” actually are and how tightly they control the cost of running them.

The central finding is a gap between orchestration ambition and orchestration reality. Enterprises are consolidating fast onto the major model platforms: Anthropic’s Claude is the primary platform for 40%, more than double any rival, followed by Microsoft (18%) and OpenAI (13%). The choice is driven by “model gravity” — native alignment with a state-of-the-art base model (21%) — and success is judged by reliable, multi-step execution (task completion reliability 32%, multi-step workflow management 28%). Yet asked to assess their portfolios honestly, 71% say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows rather than single-prompt chatbot wrappers, and only 10% have crossed the halfway mark. The orchestration layer is being built well ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run.

That gap shapes the architecture enterprises are putting in place. By the end of 2026 a clear majority (51%) expect a hybrid control plane — provider-native plus external orchestration — and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service, because vendor lock-in (35%) is the risk they fear most if control lives inside a model provider. Investment follows the build-out: agent workflow tooling leads the spend (34%), with security and permissions enforcement (25%) behind. And fiscal control lags throughout — more than a quarter (27%) have no real-time way to stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent orchestration. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=101), drawn from a single June 2026 wave; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends.

By organization size the sample is spread evenly across the enterprise bands: 100–499 employees, 2,500–9,999, and 50,000+ (21% each), with 10,000–49,999 and 500–2,499 (19% each). By role it is senior and buyer-credible: product and program managers (15%), CIO/CTO/CISO (13%), consultants and advisors (13%), and a spread of data, AI, and engineering directors and VPs, with an “Other” function at 18%. On purchasing, 81% are recommenders, influencers, or final decision-makers for AI solutions (66% recommender/influencer, 15% final decision-maker). Technology/Software is the largest industry at 44%, followed by Financial Services (17%) and Healthcare/Life Sciences (8%).

At 101 respondents the sample is robust enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, though it remains self-selected and is not a probability sample.

Finding 1: Orchestration runs on model-provider platforms

Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal

We asked which agent orchestration platform enterprises primarily use today. The answer concentrates on the major model providers — and on one in particular.

A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondents are self-selected, and this question asked them for a single primary platform — so the figures measure which platform leads each enterprise's deployment, within a self-selected audience of AI-active technical decision-makers. A sample built this way can diverge substantially from spend-weighted market measures, and each VB Pulse survey draws its own sample with its own company-size mix, so vendor figures should not be compared across our surveys either. Read these shares as a portrait of where this cohort has placed its primary orchestration bet today, rather than as market share.

The model platforms dominate. Anthropic, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Amazon together account for roughly 80% of deployments (81 of 101), while the open frameworks (LangChain/LangGraph) and custom in-house builds that anchor engineering discussion sit in single digits. Anthropic’s lead — 40%, more than double the next platform — mirrors the “model gravity” selection logic in Finding 2: enterprises are choosing the orchestration layer that comes with the model they want to build on. As with the security vendors in the prior agent-security wave, the tools that define the category in technical circles are not yet where enterprise deployment concentrates. A small 3% are not orchestrating at all.

Respondents rate the platforms they run at 3.94 out of 5 overall (109 answered), with “value for money” specifically at 3.94 and “ease of implementation” the weakest score, at 3.85 — placing orchestration near the bottom of our five-tracker satisfaction range, ahead of only evaluation tooling. A rating just under 4 out of 5, from users of whom 96% plan to change their orchestration approach within the year, reads as provisional acceptance: the platforms work well enough to run today, and not well enough to stop the search for something better. The ratings sit alongside near-universal intent to change; this is a layer enterprises tolerate more than they love.

Finding 2: Model gravity drives platform selection

The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform

We asked what most influenced the orchestration platform choice. The single largest factor is the pull of the underlying model — though flexibility and ease of development follow close behind.

Model gravity leading is the selection-side explanation for Anthropic’s platform lead: enterprises pick the orchestration environment closest to the frontier model they have standardized on. But the next tier complicates the picture — flexibility across models and tools (17%) and ease of development (17%) say enterprises also want to avoid being trapped by that choice, foreshadowing the lock-in fear in Finding 6. Security and permissions (14%) and total cost of ownership (11%) round out a pragmatic buying logic. Performance (latency/memory) sits last at 4%, a reminder that at this stage of adoption the binding constraints are model fit and optionality, not raw speed.

Finding 3: The job is reliable multi-step execution

Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work

We asked what enterprises optimize for — their primary success metric for orchestration. Reliability and multi-step workflow management dominate; developer- and user-facing metrics trail.

Task completion reliability (32%) and multi-step workflow management (28%) together account for 59% of responses (60 of 101): orchestration succeeds, in the enterprise view, when it reliably carries a task through multiple steps to completion. Developer productivity (17%) matters but is secondary — the inverse of its prominence in framework discussion — and end-user experience (9%) is a minor concern, consistent with orchestration being an internal execution problem rather than a UX one. This reliability-first standard is exactly what makes the Chatbot Trap finding so pointed: enterprises define success as dependable multi-step execution, yet most of their deployed “agents” do not yet do multi-step work at all.

The trap is not evenly distributed. Splitting the sample by organization size, 77% of smaller enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their agents do true multi-step work, against 62% of larger ones. Larger enterprises are meaningfully further into genuine multi-step deployment; the chatbot trap is, directionally, a mid-market condition.

Finding 4: Consolidate, productionize, and build in-house

Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead

We asked what major change enterprises anticipate in their orchestration strategy over the next 12 months. Three moves cluster at the top, almost evenly split.

The top three — building in-house control (25%), standardizing on one framework (24%), and moving agents from sandbox to production (23%) — are statistically indistinguishable and tell a single story: enterprises are moving from experimentation to operational consolidation. They want fewer frameworks, more production exposure, and more ownership of the control layer; only 4% expect no change. The appetite for custom in-house control planes is notable alongside the platform concentration in Finding 1 — enterprises are standardizing on model-provider platforms while simultaneously planning to wrap them in control logic they own, the hybrid posture that Finding 6 makes explicit.

Finding 5: Nearly seven in 10 plan to switch — and the biggest group of movers has no shortlist 

The strategic change enterprises anticipate (previous finding) comes with vendor motion attached. Asked whether they plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent orchestration platform in the next twelve months, more respondents are moving here than in any other layer we track.

Asked which platforms they are considering, the most common answer among those in motion is none yet: 29% of all respondents are evaluating without a shortlist, the largest single response after "not considering a change." Among named candidates, OpenAI leads at 16%, followed by LangChain/LangGraph at 12% and Anthropic at 7% — and notably, the independent frameworks draw roughly double their current usage footprint in forward consideration, the same pattern our security tracker found for specialist vendors. Read with this report's concentration and lock-in findings, the picture completes itself: the major model-platform providers hold roughly four-fifths of today's primary usage, vendor lock-in has become the leading fear, 96% anticipate a strategic change — and now the purchase intent to act on all of it, with the largest bloc of buyers still undecided. The most concentrated layer of the agentic stack is also, as of June, the least settled.

Finding 6: Investment flows to workflow tooling

Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails

We asked which orchestration-related investment will grow most next year. Agent workflow tooling leads, with security and permissions enforcement behind.

Workflow tooling leading (34%) is the budget-side expression of the reliability-and-multi-step priority in Finding 3: the money is going to the machinery that strings steps together dependably. Security and permissions enforcement (25%) and scaling infrastructure (20%) follow — the investments required to take agents from sandbox into production, the strategic move in Finding 4. Monitoring and debugging draws a smaller 11%, with another 11% reporting flat budgets. The weight on tooling, permissions, and scaling over pure observability signals that enterprises are spending to build and harden orchestration, not merely to watch it run.

Finding 7: The control plane will be hybrid — and lock-in is why

Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer

We asked where enterprises expect the primary control plane for agents to live by the end of 2026, and what worries them most if that control sits inside a model-provider platform. A clear majority expect a hybrid model — and vendor lock-in is the reason.

Hybrid control is the dominant expectation by a wide margin (51%), and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service outright. Read together, the hybrid, custom, and externally-abstracted options — every architecture that keeps control at least partly outside the provider — sum to 88% (89 of 101). The reason surfaces directly when we asked about the risk of provider-resident control: vendor lock-in leads at 35% (35 of 101), ahead of security and permissioning limitations (28%) and inflexibility across models and tools (21%). The pattern echoes the prior wave’s “don’t trust the model to police itself” posture — here, enterprises will build on a provider’s platform but decline to be governed entirely by it. The hybrid control plane is the architectural hedge against the lock-in they most fear.

The June figure asserting a preference for a hybrid control plane marks movement from earlier. In the April–May survey (n=145), only 34% expected a hybrid control plane, and a greater number (12%) expected to hand control fully to a provider-managed service. These two snapshots don’t yet measure a confirmed longitudinal trend — but the direction of the conversation is unambiguous: toward keeping control.

Lock-in is also a new arrival as a top concern. In the April–May wave, the leading concern was security and permissioning limitations (32%), with lock-in second at 24%; by June the two had traded places. The worry about provider platforms appears to be maturing from whether they can be secured to whether they can be replaced.

Finding 8: The chatbot trap — most “agents” aren’t agents yet

Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers

We asked enterprises to assess their portfolios honestly: what share of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows versus simple single-prompt chatbot wrappers. The answer is the defining finding of this wave.

This is the gap at the center of the report. Combining the bottom two bands, 71% of enterprises (72 of 101) say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are genuinely orchestrated — and just 10% (10 of 101) have crossed the halfway mark. The ambition documented in the earlier findings — model-provider platforms, reliability-first success metrics, production rollouts, a deliberate control architecture — runs well ahead of the deployed reality, which remains overwhelmingly single-prompt assistants dressed as agents. This is less a contradiction than a roadmap: the platforms, budgets, and strategies are being put in place precisely because the orchestrated portfolio is still so thin. The open question for later waves is how fast the reality closes on the ambition.

Finding 9: Fiscal control is still reactive

Only a minority can stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives

Finally, we asked how enterprises enforce fiscal control over agent token consumption — the risk that an autonomous loop exhausts a budget before anyone intervenes. Most rely on native caps or after-the-fact monitoring; real-time programmatic control is the exception.

More than a quarter of enterprises (27%) admit they have no real-time, programmatic way to stop an agent before a budget-breaking bill arrives — they learn of it from the logs afterward. Another 32% lean entirely on the native caps and throttles built into their primary platform, a control only as good as the provider’s tooling and one that ties back to the lock-in concern of Finding 6. The enterprises building custom gateways (23%) or exploiting cross-model routing to arbitrage cost (19%) are the ones treating token burn as an engineering problem to be controlled deterministically. As with orchestration maturity, fiscal control is an area where the operational reality lags the ambition: agents are moving toward production faster than the cost-control plane around them is being built.

It’s worth noting, a split appears according to company size: roughly one in three enterprises under 2,500 employees (34%) exercises only reactive control of agent spend, against 20% of larger enterprises — directional figures, but consistent with the chatbot-trap split. The mid-market is running the least mature agents on the least instrumented budgets.

The bottom line: The layer is real; most of the agents aren't yet

Organizations with 100 or more employees describe an orchestration strategy that is consolidating quickly and maturing slowly. They are standardizing — for now — on model-provider platforms, which collectively hold roughly four-fifths of primary usage, chosen for the gravity of the underlying model, and they judge success by reliable multi-step execution. Investment is flowing to workflow tooling and permissions, the strategy is to consolidate frameworks and push agents into production, and the control plane they expect is deliberately hybrid, because vendor lock-in is the risk they fear most. But the standardization is provisional: 68% plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement orchestration platform within twelve months — the highest switching intent of any layer we track — and the largest group of those movers has not yet shortlisted a candidate. Today's concentration describes where enterprises are, and visibly does not describe where they intend to stay.

But the honest self-assessment punctures the ambition. Seventy-one percent say a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" are truly orchestrated, only 10% are past the halfway mark, and more than a quarter cannot stop a runaway agent in real time. The orchestration layer — the platforms, the budgets, the control architecture — is being built ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run. At 101 respondents in a single June wave this reads as a clear directional signal rather than a precise measurement: enterprises have decided how they want to orchestrate agents well before most of their agents are doing anything an orchestration layer is for. The questions for subsequent waves are whether the deployed reality closes the gap on the ambition — and, with nearly seven in ten buyers in motion and most of them undecided, which platforms the settled stack finally lands on.

Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, results read directionally rather than as a confirmed trend. Respondents include product and program managers, CIOs, CTOs and CISOs, consultants and advisors, and directors and VPs of data, AI, and engineering, across Technology/Software, Financial Services, Healthcare, and other sectors.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.

The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.

What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability & Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).

At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.

Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.

Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent

Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer

We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.

This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.

Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation

The top complaint: Evals don't match real-world outcomes

We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.

Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.

Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway

Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment

We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.

Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.

Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. 

Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led

Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all

We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.

The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.

Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality

Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic

Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is functioning — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent's output is correct — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.

Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don't-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.

Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency

Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal

We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.

Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.

Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability

Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation

We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.

The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report's quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing.

Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.

Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming

Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year

We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.

The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint.

Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.

The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close

Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.

The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.

Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.

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.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.

The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.

What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).

At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.

Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.

Finding 1: The incidents are already here

More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss

We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.

This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.

Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.

Finding 2: The identity gap

Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity

We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.

Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.)

The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.

Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.

Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate

Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents

We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.

Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.

Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls

Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register

We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.

Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.

The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.

(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)

Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it

Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags

We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.

Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.

Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up

Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents

We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.

Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.

Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best

Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers

We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.

Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.

Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming

Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year

We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.

The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle.

Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.

The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. 

What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.

The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first

Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.

The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.

Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.

The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.

Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).

At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.

Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production

Only one in five run AI in production at scale

We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.

The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.

Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs

The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today

We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.

The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.

(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)

Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run

AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list

We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.

Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.

This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.

Finding 4: A switching wave is building

Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter

We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.

For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.

(Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.)

Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price

Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price

We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.

Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.

Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time

83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less

We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.

Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%

The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.

Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly

Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs

We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.

Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.

Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching

As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters

Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.

The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.

The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close

Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.

The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.

Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.

The post 6 Best Accounts Payable Software in 2026 appeared first on TechRepublic.