Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien

CVE-2026-64810 | JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA up to 2026.1 Notification cross site scripting (WID-SEC-2026-2505)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 14:04:30 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA up to 2026.1. This affects an unknown function of the component Notification. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-64810. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available. You should upgrade the affected component.

A Promising Process For Nuclear Fuel Re-use and Disposal?

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:48:14 +0200

A Canadian lab has run a chemical process on real spent nuclear fuel "and pulled out 90% of the long-lived danger in 24 hours, the part that forces a burial site to last 100,000 years," notes the blog Autonocio, "with the leftovers meant to fuel a reactor." The standard plan for spent nuclear fuel is to wait it out. You pull the used bundles from a reactor, sit them in a pool of water for seven to ten years while the heat and radiation come down, seal them in concrete casks, and look for somewhere deep and geologically dull to leave them for the next hundred thousand years. Canada has been hunting for that burial site since the 1980s and still doesn't have one in the ground. A company in Saint John, New Brunswick thinks most of what makes that waste dangerous never needed to go in the ground at all. Moltex Energy Canada says a chemical process it calls WATSS can strip 90% of the long-lived material out of used Canada Deuterium Uranium [CANDU] fuel in 24 hours, and that the concentrated leftovers become fuel for a reactor it wants to build on the same site. The recovery step isn't a slide in a pitch deck anymore. In 2025, World Nuclear News reported that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories ran the process on real used fuel from a commercial Canadian reactor and confirmed the 90% figure. None of it is generating power yet. What exists is a validated chemical step and a reactor design waiting in line at a regulator. The rest is a 2030s problem. "The chemistry has a lab result behind it. The reactor does not exist..." the article points out. "Moltex is aiming to have its first WATSS and SSR-W units running at Point Lepreau by the early-to-mid 2030s... Not everyone buys the pitch. Critics have argued the reprocessing creates its own stream of byproducts, that the economics are unproven, and that a single site's stockpile is finite." But Moltex "isn't alone in trying to burn nuclear waste instead of bury it," the article notes, with Switzerland and Denmark "chasing the same goal a different way." Switzerland's Transmutex drives a subcritical reactor with a particle accelerator, feeding it spent fuel alongside thorium... Denmark's Copenhagen Atomics is building a thorium molten-salt reactor that fits inside a shipping container and runs on the leftovers from conventional plants. Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader kwelch007 for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CVE-2026-34974 | thorsten phpMyFAQ up to 4.1.0 SVG SvgSanitizer.php edit_faq cross site scripting (GHSA-5crx-pfhq-4hgg)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 10:22:33 +0200

A vulnerability categorized as problematic has been discovered in thorsten phpMyFAQ up to 4.1.0. Affected by this issue is the function edit_faq of the file SvgSanitizer.php of the component SVG Handler. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-34974. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-34823 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /manage/password/web/ remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:12 +0200

A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Affected is an unknown function of the file /manage/password/web/ of the component Parameter Handler. This manipulation of the argument remark causes cross site scripting. This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-34823. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-34818 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter localdomains remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:12 +0200

A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /manage/dnsmasq/localdomains/ of the component Parameter Handler. Such manipulation of the argument remark leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-34818. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

CVE-2026-34821 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter user remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:11 +0200

A vulnerability identified as problematic has been detected in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. This affects an unknown function of the file /manage/vpnauthentication/user/ of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument remark leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2026-34821. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.

CVE-2026-34822 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Certificate /manage/ca/certificate/ new_cert_name cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:11 +0200

A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. This impacts an unknown function of the file /manage/ca/certificate/ of the component Certificate Handler. The manipulation of the argument new_cert_name results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-34822. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

CVE-2026-34819 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter openvpnclient.cgi REMARK cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:10 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. It has been declared as problematic. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/openvpnclient.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Such manipulation of the argument REMARK leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-34819. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-34820 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /manage/ipsec/ remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:10 +0200

A vulnerability categorized as problematic has been discovered in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /manage/ipsec/ of the component Parameter Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument remark can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-34820. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.

CVE-2026-34815 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/smtpdomains.cgi DOMAIN cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:09 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /cgi-bin/smtpdomains.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument DOMAIN results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34815. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-34817 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/smtprouting.cgi BCC cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:09 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. It has been rated as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/smtprouting.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument BCC results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-34817. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.

CVE-2026-34816 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter domainrouting domain cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:08 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. It has been classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /manage/smtpscan/domainrouting/ of the component Parameter Handler. This manipulation of the argument domain causes cross site scripting. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-34816. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

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

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

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

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CVE-2026-3468 | SonicWall Email Security cross site scripting (WLID-2026-0002)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:17 +0200

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in SonicWall Email Security. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-3468. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

CVE-2026-34739 | WWBN AVideo up to 26.0 testIP.php htmlspecialchars cross site scripting (GHSA-jqrj-chh6-8h78)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:17 +0200

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in WWBN AVideo up to 26.0. This impacts the function htmlspecialchars of the file testIP.php. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-34739. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-34448 | SiYuan up to 3.6.1 mAsse cross site scripting (ID 17246)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:13 +0200

A vulnerability was found in SiYuan up to 3.6.1 and classified as problematic. This affects an unknown function. The manipulation of the argument mAsse results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-34448. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-34405 | nuxt-modules og-image up to 6.2.4 /_og/d/ cross site scripting (GHSA-mg36-wvcr-m75h)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:12 +0200

A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in nuxt-modules og-image up to 6.2.4. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /_og/d/. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-34405. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-34801 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter fixed_leases remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:11 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /manage/dhcp/fixed_leases/ of the component Parameter Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument remark can lead to cross site scripting. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-34801. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-34449 | SiYuan up to 3.6.1 cross-domain policy (ID 17246)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:11 +0200

A vulnerability has been found in SiYuan up to 3.6.1 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. This manipulation causes permissive cross-domain policy with untrusted domains. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-34449. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit. The affected component should be upgraded.

CVE-2026-34798 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/routing.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:09 +0200

A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /cgi-bin/routing.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument remark results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-34798. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

CVE-2026-34799 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /manage/dnsmasq/hosts/ remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:09 +0200

A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /manage/dnsmasq/hosts/ of the component Parameter Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument remark can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-34799. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

CVE-2026-34800 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter uplinkeditor.cgi Name cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:09 +0200

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/uplinkeditor.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument Name leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-34800. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

CVE-2026-34811 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/xtaccess.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:06 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /cgi-bin/xtaccess.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument remark can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2026-34811. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

CVE-2026-34812 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/proxypolicy.cgi mimetypes cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:06 +0200

A vulnerability has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25 and classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the file /cgi-bin/proxypolicy.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument mimetypes leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-34812. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

CVE-2026-34813 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/proxyuser.cgi User cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:06 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /cgi-bin/proxyuser.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument User results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability was named CVE-2026-34813. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

CVE-2026-34809 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/zonefw.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:05 +0200

A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. This affects an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/zonefw.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument remark results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-34809. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.

CVE-2026-34808 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/outgoingfw.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:05 +0200

A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/outgoingfw.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument remark leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-34808. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.

CVE-2026-34810 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/vpnfw.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:05 +0200

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. This impacts an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/vpnfw.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. This manipulation of the argument remark causes cross site scripting. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-34810. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.

CVE-2026-34814 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/proxygroup.cgi group cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:05 +0200

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Affected is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/proxygroup.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Such manipulation of the argument group leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-34814. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

CVE-2026-34805 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/dnat.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:04 +0200

A vulnerability categorized as problematic has been discovered in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /cgi-bin/dnat.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Such manipulation of the argument remark leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2026-34805. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

CVE-2026-34804 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /manage/qos/rules/ dscp cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:04 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. It has been rated as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /manage/qos/rules/ of the component Parameter Handler. This manipulation of the argument dscp causes cross site scripting. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-34804. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

CVE-2026-34807 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/incoming.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:04 +0200

A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/incoming.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument remark can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-34807. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-34806 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/snat.cgi remark cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:04 +0200

A vulnerability identified as problematic has been detected in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/snat.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument remark results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-34806. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

CVE-2026-34803 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /manage/qos/classes/ Name cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:03 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. It has been declared as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the file /manage/qos/classes/ of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument Name results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-34803. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

CVE-2026-34802 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/salearn.cgi spam cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:03 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. It has been classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /cgi-bin/salearn.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument spam leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-34802. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

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

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

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Did Virginia Regulators Downplay Data Center Health Concerns?

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

Politico reports that in the Virginia area alone there's dozens of data center projects "that altogether need 70 gigawatts of power — equivalent to 70 nuclear plants" — currently seeking connection to their grid. But there's also concerns about a Virginia data center powered with natural gas and backup diesel generators: When Virginia's top environmental regulator received an analysis warning of data center pollution, it took him less than five minutes to forward it to seven people on his staff... Internal emails obtained by POLITICO through a public records request paint a portrait of an agency that moved quickly to defend the only data center in Virginia that is powering itself — in what former officials and environmental health advocates described as an unusual effort to shape the debate around an industry whose global epicenter is in the state. The agency's pushback focused on the report's findings that the facility in Loudoun County could release harmful amounts of air pollution through eight bus-sized natural gas turbines — as allowed by permits granted by the Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] itself... The request comes as data centers are devising new ways to produce their own power as a way to temper growing public discord over rising electricity prices amid the AI construction boom. Virginia has more than 600 data centers. The report [commissioned by Virginia's 54-year-old environmental nonprofit Piedmont Environmental Council] raised concerns that the data center's on-site power system, which also includes dozens of backup diesel generators, could cause tens of millions of dollars in health damages to people living around the facility, owned by Vantage Data Centers... [The analysis also argued the pollution could lead to 3.4 to 6.5 premature deaths annually.] People living near the Vantage facility in Sterling say its natural gas turbines produce constant noise and air pollution. The permits for Vantage issued by DEQ in 2023 allow cumulative emissions of seven different pollutants, including 95 tons per year of nitrogen oxides and more than 56 tons of soot. Both contribute to asthma and heart attacks. Those figures are in line with other state permits for minor sources of pollution, but DEQ's permits for Vantage have sparked local concerns because of the facility's location in a residential area... [Viriginia environmental quality officials] raised questions about whether the report wrongly described the facility's potential air pollution as dangerous, when soot levels in Loudoun County are deemed acceptable by America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Health experts, including former EPA air quality official Michael Korber, told POLITICO that soot pollution can negatively affect human health even at EPA-approved levels. The World Health Organization's standard for ambient soot pollution is nearly half of what EPA suggests is safe. Some current and former staffers on Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality believe it's inappropriate for the agency to issue aggressive statements on the healthfulness of the data centers, with one former department leader saying Virginia's DEQ "is not the health department."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Drying Lakebeds Are Releasing Massive Amounts of Carbon, Study Finds

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

"In many parts of the world, lakes are drying out at a scale so massive that scientists are warning they may be emitting enough greenhouse gases to rival our fossil fuel habit," reports ScienceAlert: In a new study published in Science, scientists say the Aral Sea — the world's largest desiccated lake — has emitted a whopping 204 megatons (~225 million US tons) of carbon dioxide since it was drained in the 1960s... The study estimates that between 1960 and 2022, the evaporating sea has released 204 megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, based on site surveys and core samples collected from across the dry lakebed... The new study suggests that rehydrating the entire basin could come with enormous benefits to the environment, not just within the sea itself, but at a global level. "There is a hidden carbon treasure beneath the Aral Sea," says biochemist Rafael Marcé from the Spanish National Research Council. "If these sediments remain exposed, carbon will continue to be released into the atmosphere. If the sea is re-flooded, that same carbon could shift from being a source of emissions to becoming part of the climate solution." According to the researchers' calculations, re-flooding the lakebed could prevent the release of the estimated 165 megatons of carbon that remain. The study also revealed that nearly one-fifth of the Aral Sea's carbon emissions are actually being released as wind blows away sediment on the lakebed, a factor that researchers had not accounted for in the past. Thanks to Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CVE-2026-32243 | Discourse up to 2026.1.2/2026.2.1 cross site scripting

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 22:22:07 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Discourse up to 2026.1.2/2026.2.1 and classified as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function. Such manipulation leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-32243. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-32273 | Discourse up to 2026.1.2/2026.2.1 Description cross site scripting

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

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Discourse up to 2026.1.2/2026.2.1. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component Description Handler. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-32273. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-32607 | Discourse up to 2026.1.2/2026.2.1 prioritize_full_name_in_ux cross site scripting

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 22:22:05 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Discourse up to 2026.1.2/2026.2.1. It has been declared as problematic. This affects the function prioritize_full_name_in_ux. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-32607. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.

Musk Counterfeits Open Source and NVidia Posts a 25 Company Letter to Help

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:47:23 +0200

I was asked to give my opinion on a new tech policy letter published by twenty-five organizations, titled Open Weights and American AI Leadership. Nvidia published the PDF, and Microsoft mirrored it to its corporate responsibility site. Jensen Huang very strangely opened a social media account based on a Nazi Swastika to promote it. The … Continue reading →

CVE-2025-62184 | Pegasystems Pega Infinity up to 25.0.x User Interface cross site scripting

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:21:44 +0200

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Pegasystems Pega Infinity up to 25.0.x. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component User Interface. This manipulation causes cross site scripting. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2025-62184. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.

Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:09 +0200

Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.

Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.

The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.

“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.

Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”

In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.

“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.

The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.

Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”

“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”

A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.

Monday.com’s key market advantages

Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.

“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”

Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.

While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”

Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.

“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”

But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.

Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.

“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.

Actions for the near-term

Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.

“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.

Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.

During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”

Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”

“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Tech layoffs: A 2026 timeline

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:08 +0200

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

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

According to data compiled by Layoffs.fyi, an online tracker that keep tabs on job losses in the technology sector, 123,941 tech employees were laid off at 269 companies in 2025. The site also reports that 71,981 government employees were laid off by DOGE alone, with 182,528 total federal workers laid off.

Here is a list — to be updated regularly — of some of the most prominent technology layoffs the industry has experienced recently.

Notable tech layoffs in 2026

Monday.com
Microsoft
Meta
Cisco
Cloudflare
Oracle
Atlassian
Salesforce
Amazon
Ericsson

July 22, 2026: Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era

The company says the decision to cut 620 jobs isn’t about margins, but about creating a flatter organization built around AI agents, autonomous teams, and deeper customer engagement.

July 6, 2026: Microsoft cuts 4,800 jobs, primarily in sales and Xbox teams

As the company trims thousands of jobs, it’s also investing in embedded engineering teams and AI infrastructure. The layoffs come several weeks after the company offered 8,750 US employees voluntary retirement buyouts.

June 5, 2026: Tech industry cut 38,242 jobs in May, worst since 2024

AI was blamed for 40% of the job cuts in May, up from 7% in January, according to research by employment placement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

May 20, 2026: Meta cuts 8,000 jobs, around 10% of workforce

The cuts are expected to expected to hit Meta’s engineering and product teams the hardest, arriving as Meta pivots toward AI to boost efficiency across its organization, according to Yahoo Tech.

May 13, 2026: Cisco to cut nearly 4,000 jobs despite strong growth in AI, enterprise networking

Despite reporting positive financial news — including record third-quarter revenue of $15.8 billion, a 12% year-over-year increase — Cisco said it will eliminate almost 4,000 jobs.

May 7, 2026: Cloudflare to cut 1,100 jobs in AI-focused restructuring

About 20% of Cloudflare’s global workforce will be culled as the company pivots for the agentic AI era, Reuters reported.

April 1, 2026: Oracle to cut up to 30,000 jobs globally, putting enterprise support and roadmaps at risk

Oracle began laying off employees on March 31 in what could be the largest workforce reduction in the company’s history. Employees received termination emails at 6 a.m. local time with immediate system lockouts and no prior warning. (Note: in June, CNBC put the final layoff tally at 21,000.)

March 12, 2026: Atlassian cuts 1,600 jobs to fund AI and enterprise expansion

Atlassian will reduce its global workforce by approximately 10%, eliminating around 1,600 roles, as the collaboration software maker redirects capital toward artificial intelligence development and enterprise sales.

March 11, 2026: Tech layoffs surpass 45,000 in early 2026

A recent analysis by RationalFX found 45,363 job cuts globally so far this year—with roughly 68% or more than 30,000 occurring in the U.S. — highlighting ongoing workforce cuts even as many tech companies report strong revenue growth.

February 10, 2026: Salesforce lays off staffers as executive leadership churn continues

Salesforce has reduced close to 1,000 roles earlier this month across teams, including marketing, product management, data analytics, and its Agentforce AI unit, Business Insider reported, quoting employees familiar with the matter.

January 23, 2026: Amazon layoffs expected to disproportionately hit AWS and tech talent

As the market slows down, AWS and other Amazon units are preparing for another round of layoffs, which is expected to overwhelmingly impact tech talent. An email from HR leader Beth Galetti on Jan. 28 confirmed 16,000 job cuts.

January 15, 2026: Ericsson plans to shed 1,600 jobs in Sweden

Ericsson lans to cut some 1,600 jobs in Sweden, the telecommunications equipment maker said doubling down on recent cost-saving measures that have helped it weather a prolonged downturn in telecoms spending, Reuters reports.

January 13, 2026: Meta plans to cut around 10% of employees in Reality Labs business

Meta plans to cut around 10% of the employees in its Reality Labs division who work on products including the metaverse, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions, according to The New York Times.

Layoffs in 2025

Cisco
Oracle
Windsurf
Intel
Microsoft
Crowdstrike
HPE
Autodesk
HPE
CISA
Workday
Salesforce
Meta

Global tech-sector layoffs surpass 244,000 in 2025

Economic uncertainty, elevated interest rates, and AI adoption have driven workforce reductions across tech companies worldwide, according to a RationalFX report.

October 28, 2025: Amazon to cut 14,000 jobs across company

Amazon will reduce its overall workforce by 14,000, cutting layers of management across the company and hiring in some areas to support its “biggest bets”.

August 18, 2025: Cisco and Oracle to cut hundreds of Bay Area jobs

Tech companies Cisco and Oracle are cutting hundreds of jobs across the Bay Area. Cisco will eliminate 221 positions at its Milpitas and San Francisco offices, effective Oct. 13. Oracle is reducing 101 positions in Santa Clara on the same date

August 5, 2025: 3 weeks after acquiring Windsurf, Cognition offers staff the exit door

Cognition, the AI coding startup that acquired rival company Windsurf three weeks ago, laid off 30 employees last week and is offering buyouts to the roughly 200 remaining employees on the team, reports The Information.

July 25, 2025, Intel to lay off 22% of workforce, CEO Tan signals ‘no more blank checks’

Intel will reduce its workforce to 75,000 employees by the end of 2025 as new CEO Lip-Bu Tan implements sweeping changes designed to transform the struggling chipmaker

July 8, 2025, Intel layoffs begin: Chipmaker is cutting many thousands of jobs

Intel has begun laying off employees across the company. CEO Lip-Bu Tan told workers back in April to expect major layoffs at Intel in the coming months as the chipmaker slashes costs and overhauls its organization after years of technical setbacks and falling sales.

July 2, 2025: Microsoft will cut 9,000 workers

Microsoft will lay off about 9,000 employees, a source familiar with the workforce cut told CNBC. The cuts will reportedly affect less than 4% of Microsoft’s global workforce and will impact different teams, geographies and levels of experience. This is the latest in a string of cuts the tech giant has made this year.

June 17, 2025: Intel looks to factory layoffs to return to profitability

Intel will lay off up to 20% of its manufacturing sector employees starting in July, according to media reports, as the company looks for options as it seeks a return to profitability. The cuts reportedly will be made around the world, but some of the layoffs will be closer to home, according to a report in The Oregonian citing an internal company memo from Intel manufacturing Vice President Naga Chandrasekaran.

May 7, 2025: CrowdStrike to lay off 5% of staff

CrowdStrike announced a plan to cut about 500 roles, roughly 5% of its workforce, to streamline operations and reduce costs. The cybersecurity company will incur about $36 million to $53 million in charges related to the layoffs

March 6, 2025: HPE cuts 2,500 jobs, remains committed to Juniper buy

CEO Antonio Neri told Wall Street analysts that HPE would begin implementing a cost-cutting program involving layoffs of about 2,500 employees over the next 18 months. HPE employs about 61,000 people worldwide.

Feb. 27, 2025: Autodesk to lay off 9% of workforce

Software maker Autodesk is laying off 1,350 staff. With the rise of subscription and multi-year contracts billed annually, and self-service enablement, it finds it needs fewer sales staff, CEO Andrew Anagnost said in a message to employees. And with its cloud, platform, and AI products proving most profitable, it’s concentrating its staff and investments there.

Feb. 27, 2025: HP to lay off 2,000 more

As part of an ongoing restructuring, HP plans to lay off up to another 2,000 workers. In recent weeks, the company has tried — unsuccessfully — to do away with telephone support staff by forcing callers to wait for at least 15 minutes if they refuse to use self-service support resources online. The company swiftly backtracked, but wider job cuts are still on.

Feb. 21, 2025: CISA lays off 130

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

Feb. 5, 2025: Workday lays off 1,750

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

Feb. 4, 2025: Salesforce lays off over 1,000

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

Jan. 14, 2025: Meta will lay off 5% of workforce

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

Tech layoffs in 2024

Equinix
AMD
Freshworks
Cisco
General Motors
Intel
OpenText
Microsoft
AWS
Dell

Nov. 26, 2024: Equinix to cut 3% of staff

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

Nov. 13, 2024: AMD to cut 4% of workforce

AMD will lay off around 1,000 employees as it pivots towards developing AI-focused chips, it said. The move came as a surprise to staff, as the company also reported strong quarterly earnings.

Nov. 7, 2024: Freshworks lays off 660

Enterprise software vendor Freshworks laid off around 660 staff, or around 13% of its headcount, despite reporting increased revenue and profits in its fourth fiscal quarter. The company described the layoffs as a realignment of its global workforce.

Sept. 17, 2024: Cisco lays off 6,000

After laying off around 4,200 staff in February, Cisco is at it again, laying off another 6,000 or around 7% of its workforce. Among the divisions affected were its threat intelligence unit, Talos Security.

Aug. 20, 2024: General Motors lays off 1,000 software staff

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

August 1, 2024: Intel removes 15,000 roles

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

July 4, 2024: OpenText to lay off 1,200

OpenText said it will lay off 1,200 staff, or about 1.7% of its workforce, in a bid to save around $100 million annually. It plans to hire new sales and engineering staff in other areas in 2025, it said.

June 4, 2024: Microsoft lays off staff in Azure division

Microsoft laid off staff in several teams supporting its cloud services, including Azure for Operations and Mission Engineering. The company didn’t say exactly how many staff were leaving.

April 4, 2024: Amazon downsizes AWS in a fresh cost-cutting round

Amazon announced hundreds of layoffs in the sales and marketing teams of its AWS cloud services division — and also in the technology development teams for its physical retail stores, as it stepped back from efforts to generalize the “Just Walk Out” technology built for its Amazon Fresh grocery stores.

April 1, 2024: Dell acknowledges 13,000 job cuts

Dell Technologies’ latest 10K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that the company had laid off 13,000 employees over the course of the 2023 fiscal year; it characterized the layoffs and other reorganizational moves as cost-cutting measures. “These actions resulted in a reduction in our overall headcount,” the company said. A comparison to the previous year’s 10K filing, performed by The Register, found that Dell employed 133,000 people at that point, compared to 120,000 as of February 2024. Dell announced layoffs of 6,650 staffers on Feb. 6, but it is unclear whether those cuts were reflected in the numbers from this year’s 10K statement.

See news of earlier layoffs.

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026: The Full Schedule

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:56 +0200

Willkommen! (Welcome!) Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 has arrived at OffensiveCon, and the world’s top security researchers are ready. This year’s enterprise-focused competition features AI Databases, Coding Agents, Local Inferences, and a separate category for NVIDIA products.

Earlier today, we held the random draw to determine attempt order. Below is the official schedule. All times are Berlin local time (CET) and may change as the competition progresses. Check back for live updates.

In case you missed it, you can watch the draw here.

Jump to:

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

DAY ONE

Thursday, May 14 - 1030

chompie of IBM X-Force Offensive Research (XOR) targeting NV Container Toolkit in the NVIDIA category for a total of $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points

Le Duc Anh Vu ( @vulda ) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeting OpenAI Codex in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Orange Tsai (@orange_8361) of DEVCORE Research Team (@d3vc0r3) targeting Microsoft Edge – Sandbox Escape in the Web Browser category for a total of $175,000 and 17.5 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1130

k3vg3n targeting LiteLLM in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Satoki Tsuji (@satoki00) / Ikotas Labs, Inc. targeting Megatron Bridge in the NVIDIA category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1300

Angelboy (@scwuaptx) of DEVCORE Research Team and TwinkleStar03 (@_twinklestar03), working with DEVCORE Internship Program targeting Microsoft Windows 11 in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Emanuele Barbeno, Cyrill Bannwart, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller of Compass Security (@compasssecurity) targeting OpenAI Codex in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Park Jae Min (@hiariz) targeting Oracle Autonomous AI Database in the AI Database category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1400

Satoki Tsuji (@satoki00) / Ikotas Labs, Inc. targeting LiteLLM in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points.

Yoseop kim(@pwning_me) targeting Megatron Bridge in the NVIDIA category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1500

Ben Koo (@kiddo_pwn) of Team DDOS targeting Mozilla Firefox – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category for a total of $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points

Interrupt Labs targeting NV Container Toolkit in the NVIDIA category for a total of $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1530

maitai (@MaitaiThe) of Doyensec (@Doyensec) targeting OpenAI Codex in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1600

Billy (@st424204), Pan Zhenpeng(@Peterpan980927), Weiming Shi (@bestswngs) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) targeting LM Studio in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Marcin Wiązowski targeting Microsoft Windows 11 in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1630

haehae (@haehaeYang) of Out Of Bounds targeting Chroma in the AI Database category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1730

chompie of IBM X-Force Offensive Research (XOR) targeting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Yoseop Kim(@pwning_me) targeting Mozilla Firefox – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category for a total of $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1800

@rewhiles of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeting Anthropic Claude Code in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1830

Kentaro Kawane of GMO Cybersecurity by Ierae targeting Microsoft Windows 11 in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Qrious Secure (@qriousec) targeting LM Studio in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Thursday, May 14 - 1900

haehae (@haehaeYang) of Out of Bounds targeting Megatron Bridge in the NVIDIA category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Back to top

DAY TWO

Friday, May 15 - 1030

Ben Koo (@kiddo_pwn) of Team DDOS targeting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Stephen Fewer (Rapid7) targeting Microsoft SharePoint in the Server category for a total of $100,000 and 10 Master of Pwn points

Tao Yan (@Ga1ois) and Edouard Bochin (@le_douds) from Palo Alto Networks targeting Apple Safari – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category for a total of $75,000 and 7.5 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1130

Le Duc Anh Vu ( @vulda ) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeting Cursor in the Coding Agent category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Nikolaos Mourousias (@deltaclock), Caue Obici (@caueobici) and Bruno Halltari (@BrunoModificato) of OtterSec targeting LM Studio in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam). targeting Anthropic Claude Code in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1300

Ruitong from the Abstract Team at the University of Colorado Boulder targeting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1330

Kiyong Kwak of Kakaogames and Song Nuri of Samsung Electronics targeting Apple Safari – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category for a total of $75,000 and 7.5 Master of Pwn points

Orange Tsai (@orange_8361) of DEVCORE Research Team targeting Microsoft Exchange in the Server category for a total of $200,000 and 20 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1400

Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam). targeting OpenAI Codex in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1430

Billy (@st424204), Bruce Chen(@bruce30262), Pan Zhenpeng(@Peterpan980927), Weiming Shi (@bestswngs ) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) targeting Megatron Bridge in the NVIDIA category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

David Tae, Louis Hur of Out Of Bounds targeting Ollama in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1530

Team: Alon Ben Tsur (@iamgweej), Yahav Azran (@_yahav) targeting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1600

@rewhiles of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeting Mozilla Firefox – Renderer Only in the Web Browser category for a total of $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points

Siyeon Wi targeting Microsoft Windows 11 in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1630

Byung Young Yi (@yibarrack) of Out Of Bounds targeting LiteLLM in the Local Inference category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1700

Emanuele Barbeno, Cyrill Bannwart, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller of Compass Security (@compasssecurity) targeting Cursor in the Coding Agent category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Friday, May 15 - 1800

Daniel Cohen Hillel (@0xDACA) targeting NV Container Toolkit in the NVIDIA category for a total of $50,000 and 5 Master of Pwn points

Back to top

DAY THREE

Saturday, May 16 - 1100

Le Tran Hai Tung (@tacbliw), dungnm (@dungnm_) and hieuvd (@gr4ss341) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeting Microsoft Windows 11 in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $30,000 and 3 Master of Pwn points

Satoki Tsuji (@satoki00) / Ikotas Labs, Inc. targeting OpenAI Codex in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam). targeting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Saturday, May 16 - 1330

Emanuele Barbeno, Cyrill Bannwart, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller of Compass Security (@compasssecurity) targeting Anthropic Claude Code in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Hyunwoo Kim (@v4bel) targeting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the Local Escalation of Privilege category for a total of $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points

Team: Giuseppe Calì (@_gcali) of Summoning Team targeting VMware ESXi in the Virtualization category with the Cross-tenant Code Execution Addon add-on for a total of $200,000 and 20 Master of Pwn points

Saturday, May 16 - 1430

splitline (@_splitline_) of DEVCORE Research Team targeting Microsoft SharePoint in the Server category for a total of $100,000 and 10 Master of Pwn points

Saturday, May 16 - 1600

Byung Young Yi (@yibarrack) of Out Of Bounds targeting Anthropic Claude Code in the Coding Agent category for a total of $40,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points

Nguyen Hoang Thach (@hi_im_d4rkn3ss) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) targeting VMware ESXi in the Virtualization category with the Cross-tenant Code Execution Addon add-on for a total of $200,000 and 20 Master of Pwn points

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

The May 2026 Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:56 +0200

I’m currently in Berlin helping set up for Pwn2Own Berlin, but that doesn’t stop Patch Tuesday from coming, and it’s another big one. At least nothing is listed as being in the wild – for now. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. Due to technical difficulties, there will not be a video companion for this month.

Adobe Patches for May 2026

For May, Adobe released 10 bulletins addressing 52 unique CVEs in Adobe Commerce, After Effects, Adobe Connect, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, Substance 3D Painter, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Authenticity SDK, and the Adobe Substance 3D Designer. Here’s this month’s overview table:

Bulletin ID	Product	CVE Count	Highest Severity	Highest CVSS	Exploited	Deployment Priority
APSB26-49	Adobe Commerce	15	Critical	8.7	No	2
APSB26-48	Adobe After Effects	4	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-50	Adobe Connect	2	Critical	9.6	No	3
APSB26-51	Adobe Illustrator	4	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-47	Adobe Media Encoder	2	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-46	Adobe Premiere Pro	3	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-55	Adobe Substance 3D Painter	2	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-54	Adobe Substance 3D Sampler	1	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-53	Content Authenticity SDK	14	Critical	7.5	No	3
APSB26-52	Adobe Substance 3D Designer	5	Important	6.3	No	3
TOTAL	10 bulletins	52

The obvious priority this month is the patch for Commerce, with its 15 bugs and deployment priority of 2. The Connect fix should also rank up there since both of its CVEs are CVSS 9s. Beyond those, it’s a pretty typical month for Adobe, with most of the bugs either being cross-site scripting (XSS) or open-and-own code executions.

Microsoft Patches for May 2026

This month, Microsoft released a whopping 138 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Copilot Chat, Github Copilot, M365 Copilot, SQL Server, TCP/IP, and the Telnet Client – yes, the Telnet client. Two of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. 30 of these bugs are rated Critical, three are rated as Moderate, one is rated Low, and the rest are rated Important in severity.

This large volume of fixes follows the largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history and reflects the trend across the industry of a high number of submissions. While not all of these bugs were found by AI, it’s likely they had an AI-related component – even if it was just AI writing the submission. I should also point out the Pwn2Own Berlin occurs in just a few days, and it’s typical for vendors to patch as much as they can before the event.

None of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, so we’ve got that going for us. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a nasty-looking bug in DNS:

- CVE-2026-41096 - Windows DNS Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This patch fixes a heap-based buffer overflow in the DNS Client triggered by a malicious DNS response. No authentication or user interaction needed, and since the DNS Client runs on virtually every Windows machine, the attack surface is enormous. An attacker with a position to influence DNS responses (MitM, rogue server) could achieve unauthenticated RCE across your enterprise.

- CVE-2026-41089 - Windows Netlogon Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This update covers another CVSS 9.8 bug, which is a stack-based buffer overflow that lets an unauthenticated remote attacker execute code on a domain controller by sending a specially crafted network request — no credentials, no user interaction required. Yup – that makes it wormable. This is the highest-impact bug that requires immediate patching: a compromised domain controller is a compromised domain.

- CVE-2026-42898 - Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This bug rates a CVSS 9.9(!) and represents a code injection in Dynamics 365. It allows any authenticated user to execute code with a scope change, meaning exploitation can break out and affect resources beyond the vulnerable component itself. Scope changes are pretty rare, so if you’re running Dynamics 365 On-Prem, definitely test and deploy this patch quickly.

- CVE-2026-40415 - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This bug in the TCP/IP stack results from a use-after-free (UAF) and could allow a remote, unauthenticated threat actor to execute code without user interaction. That makes this another wormable bug. However, this one is much less likely to be exploited. The target needs to be under sustained low-memory (memory pressure) conditions, which is pretty rare. Still, no need to tempt fate here. Test and deploy this one quickly.

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

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

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

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

Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, there are quite a few scary-looking bugs (including a CVSS 10!), but there’s no action for the end user as Microsoft has already mitigated these bugs and is just now documenting them. There’s also this month’s crop of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an attack vector. However, the bug in Office for Android does not have the Preview Pane vector; it’s simple open and own. The bug in the WiFi driver needs a network adjacent attacker. The SharePoint bug requires authentication, but anyone with site privileges has the authentication needed. The bug in SSO Plugin for Jira & Confluence should really be called an authentication bypass, since it allows an unauthenticated attacker to gain access to a system.

Looking at the other code execution bugs, most are of the open and own variety as expected. The bug in Dynamic 365 (On Prem) requires high privileges. The Message Queueing bug requires an adjacent attacker. The bug in SQL Server requires authentication, but as usual, patching won’t be straightforward. Finally, there’s a bug in the kernel that leads to code execution. Most kernel bugs are privilege escalations, but this one could allow code execution if an attacker sends specially crafted NVMe over Fabrics (NVMe‑oF) response messages during the connection handshake process that contains an invalid header length value. Neat.

As usual, the vast majority of the Microsoft release fixes Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs. Also as usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. There are also a few bugs that just state the attacker could “gain ELEVATED privileges.” How obtuse. The bugs in Azure allow an attacker to access data otherwise hidden from them. The Edge bug allows threat actors to elevate to the privileges of the running application. The bug in Visual Studio allows attackers to get permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. Finally, there are a couple of sandbox escapes, too, which are always useful.

This month's update includes six Security Feature Bypass vulnerabilities. The most severe is in the Azure SDK for Java (CVSS 9.1). An attacker over the network can bypass the integrity protection provided by authentication tags on encrypted data, effectively manipulating encrypted input in a way that slips past integrity checks during decryption. Close behind is the bypass affecting the GitHub Copilot integration in Visual Studio Code (CWE-74). This one requires a user interaction, but it allows an attacker to circumvent the path validation safeguards that normally control which files Copilot is permitted to modify. The other Visual Studio Code bypass involves cross-site scripting, improper link resolution, and information exposure triggered when a user opens or views a maliciously crafted notebook. On the Windows networking side there are two bypasses. The first hits the Windows TCP/IP driver via an authentication bypass using an alternate channel. The other impacts the Windows Filtering Platform through improper access control, allowing a local, low-privileged attacker to bypass FQDN-based network security rules. Finally, there’s a Secure Boot bypass that, you guessed it, bypasses secure boot features.

Moving on to the Information Disclosure bugs fixed this month, we have 15 different CVEs. As usual, the majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The bug in Power Automate could expose data marked “Sensitive” within Power Automate Desktop flows. One of the Word bugs could disclose NLTM hashes. The bug in Edge could disclose your cookies, which seems rude. The bug in Visual Studio could expose file path information. Finally, there’s a bug in Telnet for Windows 11 that leaks information being used by Telnet at the time. I didn’t even realize Windows 11 still had a telnet client.

The May release contains 10 spoofing bugs (plus the ones already addressed by Microsoft). The bug in Azure Machine Learning Notebooks vulnerability requires user interaction, but it could expose info through the Azure ML web interface to the attacker. There’s a cluster of fixes for Microsoft's mobile Office suite on Android. Excel, Word, and PowerPoint for Android all carry spoofing flaws rooted in improper access control. Two Copilot products are also affected by spoofing vulns. The M365 Copilot for Desktop has no details provided. The M365 Copilot for Android variant requires low privileges and producing only limited impact on confidentiality and integrity. Microsoft Teams for Android rounds out the mobile app spoofing bugs. Three Edge bugs close things out, all involving misrepresentation of information in the browser UI.

There are two Tampering bugs in this month’s release. The one in .NET Core allows threat actors to write files to an affected system. The other is in Outlook for iOS and manifests as a command injection bug.

There are eight DoS bugs in the May release, but as always, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting from a practical standpoint are two TCP/IP bugs that allow a low-privilege Hyper-V guest to crash the host. Both are triggered from the adjacent network. On the broader network-exposure side, the ASP.NET Core bug is a straightforward infinite loop condition — an unauthenticated attacker sends a crafted request over the network and the server stops responding.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

Assuming I survive Pwn2Own Berlin (which is looking iffy at the moment), I’ll return on June 9th on what will hopefully be a smaller release than this one. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026: Day Three Results and Master of Pw

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

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

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

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

Here are the results of Day Three:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The June 2026 Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:53 +0200

I’ve made it through Pwn2Own Berlin, had a little vacation, and now I’m back for Patch Tuesday. Microsoft and Adobe didn’t disappoint. In fact, they have heralded my return with the largest Patch Tuesday release ever. Thanks? Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for June 2026

For June, Adobe released 11 bulletins addressing 123 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, ColdFusion, Experience Manager, Experience Manager Forms, InDesign, InCopy, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Credentials SDK, Dreamweaver, Format Plugins, and Adobe Campaign Classic. A total of 11 of these CVEs were reported through the ZDI program.

Here’s this month’s overview table:

Bulletin ID	Product	CVE Count	Highest Severity	Highest CVSS	Exploited	Deployment Priority
APSB26-66	Adobe Campaign Classic	2	Critical	10.0	No	1
APSB26-64	Adobe ColdFusion	7	Critical	9.6	No	1
APSB26-63	Adobe Acrobat Reader	20	Critical	7.8	No	2
APSB26-57	Adobe Experience Manager Forms	3	Critical	9.3	No	2
APSB26-62	Adobe Dreamweaver	5	Critical	8.6	No	3
APSB26-65	Adobe Format Plugins	2	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-59	Adobe InCopy	3	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-58	Adobe InDesign	12	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-60	Adobe Substance 3D Sampler	4	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-61	Content Credentials SDK	8	Critical	7.5	No	3
APSB26-56	Adobe Experience Manager	57	Important	5.4	No	3
TOTAL	11 bulletins	123

Obviously, the update for Campaign Classic should be on the top of your deployment list if you’re a user. A CVSS 10 is rare; two in the same bulletin is pretty much a unicorn. Adobe says there are no active attacks, but I would expect heavy research into creating one. The update for Coldfusion is also a Priority 1, but again, no known attacks is the wild. I suspect the Reader patch will also receive a lot of attention as malicious PDFs are common in ransomware attacks. The update for Experience Manager may be large, but it’s mostly just cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs.

Microsoft Patches for June 2026

This month, Microsoft released a new record 208 CVEs Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Secure Boot, and BitLocker. At least, that’s my count. Microsoft’s tools seem to be having some issues, as they initially included a CVE from 2020 in this release. Regardless, the count is over 200, and I counted several times.

One of these bugs came through the ZDI program, but bugs submitted during Pwn2Own Berlin remain unpatched. If you include the Chromium and other third-party bugs, the total CVE count for June comes to a staggering 571 CVEs. 38 of these cases are rated Critical while the rest are rated Important in severity.

I’ve been counting CVEs on Patch Tuesday since 2017, and this is by far the largest monthly release in that time. The previous record was 177 set last year. It is extraordinary that Microsoft can produce so many patches in a single month, but it does raise concerns. How many of these cases were found using AI tools? How many patches were generated using AI to assist in coding or testing? What quality issues may exist in these patches? And likely most importantly, is this the new normal? The last two months were also large releases. Should sysadmins adjust their processes for prioritization and patch deployment based on this new volume of updates? Unfortunately, Microsoft is not providing those answers right now. Hopefully that changes in the future. BTW – just a note – the current number of CVEs shipped by Microsoft this year exceeds the total number of CVEs shipped in all of 2018.

One of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month is listed as under active exploitation and three others are listed as publicly known at the time of release. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bug being exploited in the wild.

- CVE-2026-41091 - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
Since Microsoft doesn’t provide info on how widespread exploitation is, we must read some tea leaves. For this patch, several different people were acknowledged, which indicates multiple parties say this is in the wild, meaning exploitation is likely significant. The good news is that most people won’t need to take action as Defender updates itself. However, if you don’t have this configured or are in an isolated environment, you’ll need to update to the latest version.

- CVE-2026-45657 - Windows Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This CVSS 9.8 bug allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code at SYSTEM level without user interaction. Yup – this is wormable. The problem lies in the way the kernel handles TCP/IP. This was listed as “Exploitation Less Likely” by Microsoft, but rest assured that every researcher and bug shop on the planet is reversing this patch right now trying to create an exploit. Test and deploy this patch quickly.

- CVE-2026-47291 - HTTP.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Our second CVSS 9.8 bug of the month, this also allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code on affected systems without user interaction. However, there is a caveat. Systems using the default MaxRequestBytes registry value used by the Windows HTTP stack are not affected by this bug. You can edit your registry settings if you need protection while you test and deploy the patch. The bulletin includes instructions and even a PowerShell script for doing this action. Microsoft lists this as “Exploitation more likely”, so I would definitely check your registry settings.

- CVE-2026-44815 - DHCP Client Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Here’s another CVSS 9.8 that has an odd incongruity. Although the CVSS says no permissions are required for exploitation, the write-up states it must be an “authenticated” user. I would err on the side of caution here and believe the CVSS. If that’s correct, then we have another bug where a remote, unauthenticated attacker could execute code on affected systems without user interaction. And since the DHCP client is on every OS, it’s a juicy target. This is another one to test and deploy with haste.

- CVE-2026-45585/CVE-2026-50507 - Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
If you’ve followed the ongoing saga of Nightmare Eclipse vs. MSRC, the bugs should look familiar. One is definitely a fix for “YellowKey”, while the other appears to be a fix for “GreenPlasma”. The researcher has promised a “bone shattering” drop on June 14, so let’s hope Microsoft is able to reach some understanding with the researcher before more 0-days are released. Also, there is a script provided by Microsoft as a mitigation, but the better strategy is to test and deploy the updates.

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

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

* 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 release, the scariest-looking one is actually nothing to concern yourself with at all. The CVSS 10 bug in Azure HorizonDB has already been addressed by Microsoft and is just being documented now. That’s also the case for five others. Of course, there wouldn’t be a release without Office bugs that have the Preview Pane as an attack vector. There are multiple in June. There’s a handful of bugs in the Remote Desktop Client, but these rely on connecting to a malicious RDP server. There are three patches for Hyper-V that allow for guest-to-host code execution. The bug in Active Directory requires authentication, but any authenticated user can hit it. For the Windows Directory Service vulnerability, it needs to be listening for TFTP. You have blocked that everywhere, right? The bug in Azure Network Adapter is somewhat unique as you need to update your Linux kernel to be protected. The bug in Azure Kubernetes allows an attacker to break out of a container and gain control of the AKS worker node. Finally, the bug in the Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) seems unlikely, but if exploited, it could allow authenticated attackers to get code execution on affected systems.

Moving on to the other code execution bugs, there are the ubiquitous open-an-own bugs in Office components like Excel and Word. The code injection bug in Exchange Server looks troubling, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MiTM), so exploitation is unlikely. The bugs in SharePoint require authentication, but you should note that the patch applies to both SharePoint Server 2016 and SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016. The two bugs in UPnP are interesting. Both can lead to code execution by causing an error during the handling of specially crafted data, which could lead to a Use After Free (UAF) bug. The bugs in RDP Client all require connecting to a malicious RDP server, but it’s not clear why some are rated Critical and some are rated Important. The NTFS vulnerability requires a user to mount a virtual hard drive on an affected system. The last RCE bug this month is in Azure Stack Edge and requires the attacker to send a specially crafted file upload request that includes a manipulated file name or path, leading to code execution.

There are more than 60 Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs in this month’s release, and as usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. A notable exception is in Exchange Server, where a user on Outlook Web Access (OWA) could gain access to other mailboxes. The bug in Visual Studio Code could allow attackers to gain permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. The bugs in Windows SDK and Windows UI Automation Manager could let attacker go from low integrity up to medium integrity code execution. The bug in Bluetooth just allows “elevated” privileges without really describing what elevated might be.

Moving on to the more than 20 security feature bypass (SFB) bugs in the June release, there are a total of 10 that impact Secure Boot. All carry scope change (S:C) in the CVSS, meaning successful exploitation affects security boundaries beyond the vulnerable component itself — specifically the ability to load untrusted code at boot, bypass Virtual Secure Mode, and undermine boot integrity guarantees. CVE-2026-45654 explicitly calls out VSM exposure. The bulk of these are credited to Alon Leviev (STORM), which is notable given his prior BootKitty/BlackLotus-adjacent research. The bugs in the Windows Boot Manager have a similar impact as the Secure Boot bugs. The UEFI Secure Boot vulnerabilities go a layer deeper. They require either local admin or physical access but could allow for the running of untrusted code even before the OS loads. Rootkits anyone? The four bugs in BitLocker all require physical access but could yield encrypted data if exploited. The bug in Windows Administration Protection allows attackers to bypass the feature that prevents standard-user apps from performing admin-level actions. The bug in Visual Studio Copilot Chat could be the most interesting non-boot bug here as it allows authentication impersonation. Mark of the Web (MotW) and Excel vulns could bypass user warnings. Lastly, the bug in PC Manager bypasses expected user controls.

Turning our attention to the mass of spoofing bugs in the release, we instantly see 18 impacting SharePoint Server. Fortunately, these are simply cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs. It’s the Exchange bugs we should really watch for. One is an XSS that an attacker can exploit by convincing an Exchange administrator to open a malicious link or message, which then runs code in the admin's web session. That's a meaningful privilege escalation path. Another is listed as an SSRF-based attack, but no other details are available. The last is a lower-impact XSS with limited confidentiality/integrity loss. The bug in Bing Search (remember Bing?) is a classic search result spoofing. The bug in Azure Stack Edge is interesting as it could allow access to resources outside the vulnerable component's security boundary. The bug in Office for Android requires user interaction. The Office Project Server bug is an authenticated XSS with low impact. The final spoofing bug is in Azure Attestation but has already been addressed. You should still verify you are protected by following the instructions in the write-up from Microsoft.

There are 30 different information disclosure bugs in this release, and fortunately, the vast majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The two bugs in Visual Studio require user interaction and could “disclose information over a network.” How obtuse. The bug in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code could disclose discloses a sign-in access token for a user's work account. That's a meaningful credential exposure, not just random memory. That leaves the two bugs in Exchange Server. One could allow an authenticated user to gain information about which network services that the Exchange server can reach. The other sounds much like the spoofing bug in OWA as it allows attackers to see information in mailboxes they should not have access to.

I’ve never been a fan of the “tampering” category, as it could mean so many different things. For example, the bug in .NET simply says it could allow an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering locally. Similarly, the bug in Visual Studio says the same, expect here the tampering occurs over a network. Microsoft doesn’t even bother with a CWE for the tampering bug in the DHCP Server, so your guess is as good as mine.

There are seven DoS bugs in the June release, and as usual, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting is the bug in HTTP.sys, which is listed as publicly known. This is an uncontrolled resource consumption, rated "Exploitation More Likely," and publicly disclosed. Since, HTTP.sys sits at the core of IIS and Windows web services, a network-accessible DoS here can take down any Windows server running HTTP-based services. Based on the Acknowledgement, it looks like this bug may have been found using AI. There are no real details for the other bugs, but based simply on the impact, I would focus on the Kerberos and TCP/IP bugs if you had to prioritize.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

The next Patch Tuesday will be on July 14 and will be the last one before Black Hat/DEFCON. It’s usually a big release, so strap in and hang on. I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

The June 2026 Apple Security Update Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pwn2Own Ireland 2026 – New Targets and Categories

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

If you just want to read the rules, you can find them here.

Pwn2Own Ireland returns for 2026, and it’s the third year for this event in the Emerald Isle. Despite the dreary Irish skies (and the threat of a random banshee), we had an amazing event, even if we did end up in a jail at the end. With that in mind, we’re excited to return to Cork this fall for yet another great Pwn2Own event. We’ll also be returning to some of the great pubs Ireland has to offer in the evenings and wrapping the event up at a special location (stay tuned for that announcement).

As for the contest itself, it will run from October 6-9, 2026. As always, we’ll have a random drawing to determine the schedule of attempts on the first day of the contest, and we will proceed from there. Registration closes at 5:00 p.m. Irish Standard Time on Oct 1st, 2026. There are no exceptions for late entries, so if you have questions, please contact us at pwn2own@trendmicro.com (note the address). We will be happy to address your issues or concerns directly.

Due to the overwhelming amount of registrations and last-minute entries for our Pwn2Own Berlin event, we’re changing who can enter the contest a bit to ensure it’s fair for all researchers. To enter, you must have received an aggregate bounty payment totaling at least $15,000 during their life-time participation in ZDI. This includes past Pwn2Own events and our regular bug bounty program. We recognize there may be some who haven’t participated in the past with great exploits to demonstrate, so we will also accept up to 10 new contestants at our discretion. We’re capping the number of entries to 80 this year. Once we have 80 qualifying entries, we will close registration. That means if you want to enter, it is in your best interest to contact us sooner rather than later. Please read the rules thoroughly to ensure you meet all the requirements.

Now on to this year’s target categories. We’ll have seven different categories for this year’s event:

-- Mobile Phones
-- Smart Home Devices
-- Wellness
-- Printers
-- Messaging
-- AI Infrastructure
-- AI Coding Agents

Let’s take a look at each category in more detail, starting with mobile phones.

The Target Phones

Back in Amsterdam where this contest originated, it was originally dubbed “Mobile Pwn2Own” and our focus was strictly on phones. Mobile handsets remain at the heart of this event, and some of the Samsung entries from last year were absolutely smashing. As always, these phones will be running the latest version of their respective operating systems with all available updates installed. Last year we also introduced the USB attack vector, but no one submitted an entry for it. We’ll see if that changes this year.

Otherwise, contestants must compromise the device by browsing to content in the default browser for the target under test or by communicating with the following short-distance protocols: near field communication (NFC), Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth. The awards for this category are:

Back to top

Smart Home Devices

As you might have noticed, we have eliminated most of the consumer-related devices from this year’s event. However, there are still a few “pro-sumer” devices that still could have an impact on enterprises, and the first of these categories are the devices that control other devices and services. An attempt in this category must be launched against the target’s exposed network services, RF attack surface, or exposed features from the contestant’s laptop within the contest network.

Back to top

Wellness Category

This is one of the new categories this year and our first foray into the world of healthcare devices. However, we don’t intend to make this too easy. Entries that require physically pressing any button on the target, or the use of any information, code or PIN printed on the device, are out of scope. Entries that require the contestant to be paired to the target prior to the start of the attempt are not in scope. An attempt in this category must be launched against the target’s exposed network services, RF attack surface, or exposed features from the contestant’s laptop within the contest network.

Back to top

Rage Against the Printers

Printers have long been the source of jokes and memes, but they are also an often overlooked attack surface in your office. The printer category always produces some interesting results, often by playing music it shouldn’t or the occasional Rick Roll. We’ve reduced the number of targets in this category this year, but we still expect to see some interesting exploits in these oft unheralded targets.

Back to top

The Messaging Category

We introduced WhatsApp as a target last year and came close to seeing a functioning exploit. Sadly, that didn’t happen. However, WhatsApp is used by more than three billion people globally, and some of the messages transmitted can be quite sensitive. That’s why we are bringing it back and hoping for some better results. We know the bugs are out there. We’re just hoping the right researcher decides to show us an exploit that leads to code execution. All of the target handset will be available as clients. Here’s the full prize list for Messaging category:

Back to top

AI Infrastructure Category

We introduced these targets at Pwn2Own Berlin, and we saw such…uh…enthusiasm from the community that we decided to immediately bring them back for our Ireland event. An attempt in this category must be launched from the contestant’s laptop. Here’s a look at the targets and awards in the AI Infrastructure category:

Back to top

AI Coding Agent Category

Let’s face it. At some point or another, we’ve probably all vibe coded something. There’s no shame in that, but how secure are the tools we use for vibe coding? Well, let’s take the most popular choices and find out. A successful entry must interact with a contestant-controlled resource (e.g. web page, repository, media file) to exploit a vulnerability within the coding agent. The attack vector of the entry must be a common coding agent use case. There are few things out of scope here as well. UI spoofing or misrepresentation unrelated to permission prompts, model jailbreaks or prompt outputs that do not cross security boundaries, and vulnerabilities that require unsafe or permission-less modes are just a few of the things not allowed. As this is a recently updated category, please read the rules carefully to ensure your entry qualifies. Here’s a look at the targets and awards in the AI Coding Agent category:

Back to top

Master of Pwn

No Pwn2Own contest would be complete without crowning a Master of Pwn, which signifies the overall winner of the competition. Earning the title results in a slick trophy, a different sort of wearable, and brings with it an additional 65,000 ZDI reward points (instant Platinum status in 2027).

For those not familiar with how it works, points are accumulated for each successful attempt. While only the first demonstration in a category wins the full cash award, each successful entry claims the full number of Master of Pwn points. Since the order of attempts is determined by a random draw, those who receive later slots can still claim the Master of Pwn title – even if they earn a lower cash payout. As with previous contests, there are penalties for withdrawing from an attempt once you register for it. If the contestant decides to remove an Add-on Bonus during their attempt, the Master of Pwn points for that Add-on Bonus will be deducted from the final point total for that attempt. For example, someone registers for the Apple iPhone 15 with the Kernel Bonus Add-on. During the attempt, the contestant drops the Kernel Bonus Add-on but completes the attempt. The final point total will be 20 Master of Pwn points.

The Complete Details

The full set of rules for Pwn2Own Ireland 2026 can be found here. They may be changed at any time without notice. We highly encourage potential entrants to read the rules thoroughly and completely should they choose to participate. We also encourage contestants to read this blog covering what to expect when participating in Pwn2Own.

Registration is required to ensure we have sufficient resources on hand at the event. Please contact ZDI at pwn2own@trendmicro.com to begin the registration process. (Email only, please; queries via social media, blog post, or other means will not be acknowledged or answered.) If we receive more than one registration for any category, we’ll hold a random drawing to determine the contest order. Registration closes at 5:00 p.m. Irish Standard Time on Oct 1st, 2025.

The Results

We’ll be blogging and tweeting results in real-time throughout the competition. Be sure to keep an eye on the blog for the latest information. Follow us on Twitter at @thezdi and @trendaisecurity, and keep an eye on the #P2OIreland hashtag for continuing coverage.

We look forward to seeing everyone in Cork, and we look forward to seeing what new exploits and attack techniques they bring with them.

©2026 Trend Micro Incorporated. All rights reserved. PWN2OWN, ZERO DAY INITIATIVE, ZDI, TrendAI, and Trend Micro are trademarks or registered trademarks of Trend Micro Incorporated. All other trademarks and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

The July 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for July 2026

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

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

Here’s this month’s overview table:

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

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

Microsoft Patches for July 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The February 2026 Security Update Review

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

I have survived the biggest Pwn2Own ever, but I’m back in Tokyo for the second Patch Tuesday of 2026. My location never stops Patch Tuesday from coming, so let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for February 2026

For February, Adobe released nine bulletins addressing 44 unique CVEs in Adobe Audition, After Effects, InDesign, Substance 3D Designer, Substance 3D Stager, Adobe Bridge, Substance 3D Modeler, Lightroom Classic, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). The largest update here is for After Effects, which fixes 13 Critical and two Important rated bugs. The patch for Substance 3D Designer is on the larger side with seven fixes, but only two of those are Critical. On the other hand, the fix for Substance 3D Stager corrects five Critical-rated bugs that could lead to code execution. The Audition patch fixes six bugs, but only one is Critical.

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

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

Microsoft Patches for February 2026

This month, Microsoft drops 58 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Azure, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), .NET and Visual Studio, GitHub Copilot, Mailslot FS, Exchange Server, Internet Explorer (!), Power BI, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings the total number of CVEs to 62. One of the bugs in the Windows Graphics component was submitted through the ZDI program. Five of these bugs are rated Critical, two are rated Moderate, and the rest are rated Important in severity.

It’s typical to see this number of CVEs released in February, but the number of bugs under active attack is extraordinarily high. Microsoft lists six bugs being exploited at the time of release, with three of these listed as publicly known. Last month only had a single bug being exploited, although there were twice as many CVEs patched. We’ll see if we’re on our way to another “hot exploit summer” as we saw a few years ago or if this is just an aberration.

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

- CVE-2026-21510 - Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
This bug is listed as a security feature bypass, but it could also be classified as code execution. An attacker can bypass Windows SmartScreen and Windows Shell security prompts to execute code on a target system. This bug is also listed as publicly known, but Microsoft doesn’t say where. There is user interaction here, as the client needs to click a link or a shortcut file. Still, a one-click bug to gain code execution is a rarity. Definitely test and deploy this fix quickly.

- CVE-2026-21514 - Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
This bug also requires user interaction in the form of opening a Word document, but that’s all that’s required to bypass protections to dangerous COM/OLE controls. Thankfully, the Preview Pane is not an attack vector here. However, users are well known to open lots of documents they receive in e-mail. This bypass could also result in code execution if the right COM/OLE control is hit. This is also listed as publicly known, so add this to the list to test and deploy quickly.

- CVE-2026-21519 - Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This is the second month in a row that a DWM was listed as being exploited in the wild. That leads me to believe the first patch didn’t completely resolve the vulnerability. Same as last month, this bug allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. Bugs of this type are typically paired with a code execution bug to take over a system. As always, Microsoft offers no indication of how widespread these exploits may be.

- CVE-2026-21533 - Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
Don’t let the word “Remote” in the title fool you – this is a local bug that allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. It’s interesting that Microsoft lists “Improper privilege management” as the root cause for this issue. If the system is running Remote Desktop Services, it’s probably a juicy target for attackers to move laterally after an initial breach. Add this one to the list of patches to test and deploy immediately.

- CVE-2026-21513 - Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
Although long gone by many measurements, IE does still exist on Windows systems, and calling it always results in a vulnerability somehow. This bug manifests similarly to the Shell bug above, as it requires user interaction but could result in code execution. The bypass here is simply the ability to reach IE, which shouldn’t be possible. Again, test and deploy this fix quickly.

- CVE-2026-21525 - Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability
It’s unusual to see DoS bugs being used in active attacks, but that’s what we have here. A null pointer deref in the Windows Remote Access Connection Manager allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service locally. Most null pointer derefs cause the application or service to crash, but it’s not clear if it will automatically restart. I would exercise caution and patch quickly either way.

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

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

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

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

Moving on to the Critical-rated bugs, the patch for Azure Front Door sounds frightening, but Microsoft has already fixed the bug and is just now documenting it. That’s also true for the bugs in Azure Arc and Azure Function. There are two Critical-rated bugs in the ACI Confidential Containers. The first allows a container escape while the second discloses secret tokens and keys. Either way, you’ll want to handle those quickly.

Taking a look at the other code execution vulnerabilities in this month’s release, we start with a frightening looking bug in Azure SDK for Python that has the highest CVSS this month of 9.8. A remote, unauthenticated attacker code gain code execution on an affected system via a maliciously crafted continuation token. It’s not clear why this isn’t rated Critical, but I would treat it as such. The three bugs in Hyper-V are actually local open-and-own bugs that require a user to open a malicious file on an affected system. That’s also true for the bug in Notepad. The bug in Power BI is confusing, because Microsoft says it requires authentication and could lead to an attacker running code as an authenticated user. There’s the poorly named “Azure Local Remote Code Execution Vulnerability”, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MitM) to exploit. The bug in Defender for Endpoint Linux is restricted to local subnets, but you’ll need to enable auto provisioning to get the patch. The final code execution bugs addressed this month are in GitHub Copilot. Two are command injections and the other is a Time-of-check time-of-use (toctou) race condition, but both could end up in code execution on affected systems.

Patches for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly 50% of this release, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. There are only two of note. The first is a command injection bug in GitHub Copilot that leads to executing code at the level of the targeted application. The second is a bug in a kernel that leads to SYSTEM but could also be used for a sandbox escape.

There’s a unusually high number of spoofing bugs in this month’s release, and the ones for Outlook are the most troubling. First, the Preview Pane is an attack vector. Secondly, the bugs could be used to relay NTLM credentials via just an email, which could result in credential disclosure. And you’ll need multiple patches to fully address these bugs. At least they can be applied in any order. There’s a UI misrepresentation bug in Exchange Server that could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or “make changes to disclosed information”. At what point does data become disclosed? That odd phrasing makes me think they are using AI to right some of their descriptions. The phrasing also appears in the patch for NTLM. That bug is triggered by opening a specially crafted Office doc, and while they explicitly say it could be used to relay NTLM creds, it sure seems that way. The patch for .NET and Visual Studio fixes a bug that allows attackers to bypass header validation, resulting in the service accepting a message it should reject. Finally, the bug in Azure HDInsight is really just a cross-site scripting (XSS) bug. The caveat here is that you need to restart Ambari server in both of the head nodes to have this fix updated. There is also an XSS in Azure Devops Server, but at least it is labelled as such.

There are a couple of additional security feature bypass bugs to discuss. The first is in Hyper-V and bypasses the Virtualization-based Security feature. The other is in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code. It’s another command injection, but this one can be used to bypass authentication. Neat.

Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, most simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The exception is the bug in Azure IoT Explorer. This bug could be used to view the contents of the target user’s local file system.

We end this month’s release with two DoS bugs: one in LDAP and one in GDI+. Neither descriptions from Microsoft provide any usable information.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

I plan on being back home for the March release but wherever I’m at, you can rest assured that March 10, I’ll be here to provide my assessment of the release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

The March 2026 Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:43 +0200

I am back in the friendly confines of the Mid-South headquarters of TrendAI ZDI (a.k.a. my home office), and am all set for the third patch Tuesday of 2026. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft.If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

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:

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

* 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!

The April 2026 Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:42 +0200

It’s time once again for Patch Tuesday, and this one is huge. We’ve also got multiple exploits in the wild, which adds another layer of urgency to this month’s release. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities, and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:

Adobe Patches for April 2026

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

Bulletin ID	Product	CVE Count	Highest Severity	Highest CVSS	Exploited	Deployment Priority
APSB26-43	Adobe Acrobat Reader	1	Critical	8.6	Yes	1
APSB26-44	Adobe Acrobat Reader	2	Critical	8.6	No	2
APSB26-32	Adobe InDesign	9	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-33	Adobe InCopy	2	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-36	Adobe FrameMaker	11	Critical	8.6	No	3
APSB26-37	Adobe Connect	9	Critical	9.6	No	3
APSB26-38	Adobe ColdFusion	7	Critical	9.3	No	1
APSB26-39	Adobe Bridge	6	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-40	Adobe Photoshop	1	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-42	Adobe Illustrator	1	Critical	7.8	No	3
APSB26-34	Adobe Experience Manager Screens	9	Important	5.4	No	3
APSB26-41	Adobe DNG SDK	3	Important	5.5	No	3

Obviously, the active attack in Reader is the highest priority for this month, but don’t ignore the second bunch of Reader patches. Cold Fusion also gets a deployment priority of 1, so if you’re still running that platform, make sure you get the update. Otherwise, the FrameMaker and Connect patches fix 11 and nine bugs, respectively. InDesign and Experience Manager Screens also have nine CVEs addressed.

Outside of the Reader bug, none of the other bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release. One of the Reader bugs and Cold Fusion have a deployment priority of one, the other Reader bug has a priority of two, while all of the other updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.

Microsoft Patches for April 2026

This month, Microsoft released a monstrous 163 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, SQL Server, Hyper-V Server, BitLocker, and the Windows Wallet Service. Counting the third-party and a huge Chromium release, it brings the total number of CVEs to a staggering 247 updates. Six of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. Eight of these bugs are rated Critical, two are rated as Moderate, and the rest are rated Important in severity.

By my count, this is the second-largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history. There are many things we could speculate on to justify the size, but if Microsoft is like the other programs out there (including ours), they are likely seeing a rise in submissions found by AI tools. For us, our incoming rate has essentially tripled, making triage a challenge, to say the least. Whatever the reason, we have a lot of bugs to deal with this month. I should also point out that the Pwn2Own Berlin occurs next month, and it’s typical for vendors to patch as much as they can before the event.

There is one Microsoft bug listed as under active attack at the time of release, and one other that’s publicly known. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the vulnerability being exploited in the wild:

- CVE-2026-32201 - Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability
Microsoft doesn’t provide a lot of information about this bug, but Spoofing bugs in SharePoint often manifest as cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs. They do note that attackers could view information or make changes to disclosed information. As always, they don’t provide any information on how widespread these attacks are, but I wouldn’t wait to test and deploy this fix – especially if you have internet-connected SharePoint servers.

- CVE-2026-33825 - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This bug is listed as publicly known, and this time, we know exactly where it was disclosed. There have been some questions about how exploitable this bug may be, but it does look like it’s a real problem – just with some reliability issues in its current state. I won’t add on to the commentary from the researcher about working with Microsoft. I’m just glad they are offering a fix for the vulnerability. If you rely on Defender, test and deploy this one quickly.

- CVE-2026-33827 - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This vulnerability allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to exploit code on affected systems without user interaction. That adds up to a wormable bug – at least on systems with IPv6 and IPSec enabled. It is a race condition, which sets exploitability to High on the CVSS scale, but we see race conditions exploited at Pwn2Own all the time, so don’t rely on that obstacle. If you’re running IPv6, I would test and deploy this fix quickly before public exploits become available.

- CVE-2026-33824 - Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Service Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Speaking of wormable bugs, here’s our second one this month. By the title, we can tell that systems with IKE enabled are affected, but that leaves plenty of targets for attackers. Microsoft also notes a significant mitigation for this bug. Blocking UDP ports 500 and 4500 at the perimeter prevents external attackers from reaching the affected service. However, insiders could still target this for lateral movement within an enterprise. For enterprises using IKE, get this fix tested and deployed with haste.

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

April 2026 Patch Tuesday

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

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

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

Looking at the other Critical-rated bugs in this month’s release, there are three Office-related bugs where the Preview Pane is once again listed as an exploit vector. I would still like to have a full-proof way of disabling the Preview Pane, but I don’t see that as an option. There’s a bug in the RDP client, but that involves connecting to a malicious RDP server. The bug in Active Directory requires authentication and a network adjacent attacker. The final Critical-rated bug is an interesting DoS in .NET Framework. An unauthenticated attacker could deny service over a network – presumably crippling any affected app made in .NET. You rarely see Critical-rated DoS bugs, but this one deserves the moniker.

Moving on to the other code execution bugs, you have quite a few open-and-own bugs in Office components, most notably Excel, where the Preview Pane is not an attack vector. The bug in SQL Server requires authentication, and as usual, additional steps are needed to ensure you have the correct update to remediate this vulnerability. The two bugs in Hyper-V almost reads like a privilege escalation since it allows unauthorized attackers to execute code locally. That’s the same for the bugs in the Windows Snipping Tool and the UPnP Device host.

More than half of this release addresses Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs. However, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. The bugs in SQL Server could allow an attacker to gain SQL sysadmin privileges. One of the kernel bugs simply states an attacker could “elevate privileges locally”. How obtuse. That’s similar for the bug in afd.sys and Desktop Windows Manager, but Microsoft also states that these bugs could crash an affected system. There are several bugs that result in a sandbox escape, including Windows Push Notifications, AFD for Winsock, Management Services, and User Interface Core. Of these, CVE-2026-26167 (Push Notifications) is the most notable — it's the only one with low attack complexity, meaning no race condition needed. The rest all require winning a race condition (AC:H). The bugs in UPnP are interesting as they allow attackers to gain access to a limited set of administrator-protected objects. Not a full escalation but definitely getting access to resources they shouldn’t. The vulnerability in the Brokering File System allows attackers to gain the level of the logged on user, so don’t do your normal activities as a user with admin privileges. The bug in Azure Monitor Agent leads to root-level access.

There are a dozen different security features bypass bugs in the April release. Some of these are obvious by the title alone. For example, the bugs in Windows Hello bypass safety features within the Hello app itself. The bug in the Biometric Service allows attackers to bypass biometric protections. The vulns in BitLocker and Secure Boot bypass protections in those components. The bug in Power Apps allows attackers to bypass a security warning dialog and trick targets into triggering an external protocol call that performs unintended actions on the user’s device. The bug in Windows Shell allows attackers to bypass Mark of the Web (MotW) protections. The bug in PowerShell could almost be described as a code execution bug as exploiting it bypasses dynamic-expression security checks, which could result in code execution. The vulnerability in the Windows Recovery Environment allows local attackers to bypass BitLocker device encryption. Finally, the bug in Virtualization‑Based Security (VBS) is the most interesting of the bunch – and not just because VBS is a (relatively) new feature. The problem allows attackers to manipulate allow a compromised Windows kernel to modify memory belonging to the secure kernel, breaking the intended isolation guarantees provided by VBS. Somewhat of a sandbox escape, but this time, you’re escaping from Virtual Trust Level 0 (VTL0) to Virtual Trust Level 1 (VTL1). Neat.

Moving on to the Information Disclosure bugs fixed this month, we have 20 different CVEs. Fortunately, most of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. While useful in crafting exploits, they aren’t exactly exciting on their own. There are also several bugs that disclose addresses from an object a contained in a sandboxed execution environment. This includes bugs in the Print Spooler, Package Catalog, and Web Account Manager. The bug in Dynamics 365 discloses the ever ineffable “sensitive information”. There are three different info disclosure bugs in UPnP. Two allow an attacker to read from the file system, while the third discloses anything available to the LOCAL SERVICE account. The final info disclosure bug resides in Copilot and Visual Studio and allows attackers to disclose the contents of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) when using Copilot. There are those who think MCP is dead (thanks to agentic AI agents), but if you’re using a custom MCP, I doubt you would want it leaked.

The April release contains just a handful of Spoofing bugs. Some, like the bugs in .NET, Active Directory, and Windows Shell, just say that they allow spoofing over a network. Others, like the bug in Windows Snipping Tool, say similar but also note that it could be used to relay NTLMv2 hashes. The patch for RDP notes that there are new warning dialogs coming this month. The bug in the Windows Admin Center would allow an attacker to interact with other tenant’s applications and content. Finally, the spoofing bug in SharePoint is another XSS issue.

There are eight DoS bugs in the April release, but as always, Microsoft provides no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. Microsoft does offer a mitigation for the http.sys bug that can be applied while you test and deploy the patch, but I would rely on the patch rather than the mitigation. Another exception is the bug for Connected User Experiences and Telemetry Service, which allows attackers to deny service locally rather than over the network.

The final(!) bug in the April release is a Tampering bug in WSUS that reads like a DoS. According to Microsoft, “An attacker can send specially crafted packets which could affect availability of the service and result in Denial of Service (DoS).” But sure – let’s call it Tampering.

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

I will be in Berlin for the next Patch Tuesday, which will be May 12, and I’ll provide my full thoughts then on what will hopefully be a smaller release than this one. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!

Announcing Pwn2Own Berlin for 2026

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:42 +0200

If you just want to read the contest rules, click here.

Willkommen zurück, meine Damen und Herren, zu unserem zweiten Wettbewerb in Berlin! That’s correct (if Google translate didn’t steer me wrong). After our inaugural competition last year, Pwn2Own returns to Berlin and OffensiveCon. Outside of our shipping troubles, we had an amazing time and can’t wait to get back.

Last year, we added Artificial Intelligence as a category with great results. This year, we’re expanding this and splitting it into multiple different categories: AI Databases, Coding Agents, Local Inferences, and a separate category for NVIDIA products. In last year’s contest, NVIDIA targets had wins, losses, and collisions, so it will be interesting to see how they fare this year. The folks from AWS wanted to get into the fray as well, so they stepped up to co-sponsor this year’s event, which allows us to increase the reward for bugs in Firecracker. Of course, we have all of the returning categories as well, including web browsers, containers, servers, virtualization, and operating systems. There’s more than $1,000,000 in cash and prizes available for contestants. Last year, we awarded $1,078,750 for 28 unique 0-days over the three-day event. We’ll see if we can eclipse those numbers in 2026.

The contest begins on May 14, but registration closes on May 7, so don’t delay in getting those submissions in. We’re hoping for maximum participation, so set aside your vibe coding and show us what you can really do. We’re looking forward to some cutting-edge exploitation on display. For 2026, we have a total of 31 targets across 10 categories. Here is a full list of the categories for this year’s event:

-- Virtualization
-- Web Browser
-- Enterprise Applications
-- Servers
-- Local Escalation of Privilege
-- Containers
-- AI Database
-- Coding Agents
-- Local Inference
-- NVIDIA

Of course, no Pwn2Own competition would be complete without us crowning a Master of Pwn (Meister von Pwn?). Since the order of the contest is decided by a random draw, contestants with an unlucky draw could still demonstrate fantastic research but receive less money since subsequent rounds go down in value. However, the points awarded for each unique, successful entry do not go down. Someone could have a bad draw and still accumulate the most points. The person or team with the most points at the end of the contest will be crowned Master of Pwn, receive 65,000 ZDI reward points (enough for Platinum status), a killer trophy, and a pretty snazzy jacket to boot.

Let's look at the details of the rules for this year's event.

Virtualization Category

Some of the highlights for each contest can be found in the Virtualization Category, and we’re thrilled to see what this year’s event could bring with it. As usual, VMware is the main highlight of this category as we’ll have VMware ESXi return with an award of $150,000. Last year produced the first ESXi exploits in Pwn2Own history, so it will be interesting to see if we get more. Microsoft also returns as a target and leads the virtualization category with a $250,000 award for a successful Hyper-V Client guest-to-host escalation. Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) is our final target in this category with a prize of $50,000.

There’s an add-on bonus in this category as well. If a contestant can escape the guest OS, then gain arbitrary code execution on the virtualization target and obtain arbitrary code execution in the guest operating system on a separate virtual machine managed by the same targeted virtualization target, they’ll earn another $50,000. That could push the payout on a ESXi bug to $200,000. This bonus is for KVM and ESXi only. Here’s a detailed look at the targets and available payouts in the Virtualization category:

Back to top

Web Browser Category

While browsers are the “traditional” Pwn2Own target, we’re continuously tweaking the targets in this category to ensure they remain relevant. We re-introduced renderer-only exploits a couple of years ago, and this year, we’ve increased the award to $75,000. In fact, we’ve increased the awards across the board for this category. Here’s a detailed look at the targets and available payouts:

Back to top

Enterprise Applications Category

Enterprise applications return as targets with Adobe Reader and various Office components on the target list once again. Attempts in this category must be launched from the target under test. For example, launching the target under test from the command line is not allowed. Prizes in this category run from $50,000 for a Reader exploit with a sandbox escape or a Reader exploit with a kernel privilege escalation, and $150,000 for an Office 365 application. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are all valid targets. Microsoft Office-based targets will have Protected View enabled where applicable. Adobe Reader will have Protected Mode enabled where applicable.

This year, we’re adding a bonus for Copilot data exfiltration and Copilot action execution. Microsoft just patched a bug like this in Excel, so we know they are out there. If you’re able to exploit Copilot in addition to a Microsoft application, you’ll earn an additional $50,000. There are quite a few rules and scenarios around this add-on, so be sure to read the rules carefully and contact us with questions. Here’s a detailed view of the targets and payouts in the Enterprise Application category:

Back to top

The Server Category

The Server Category for 2026 focuses solely on the server components we’re most interested in. These servers are often targeted by everyone from ransomware crews to nation/state actors, so we know there are exploits out there for them. The only question is whether we’ll see any of the competitors bring one of those exploits to Pwn2Own. Last year, the bugs demonstrated in SharePoint ended up being exploited in the wild, so we know people are looking for these with great interest. Microsoft Exchange has been a popular target for some time, and it returns as a target this year as well, with a payout of $200,000. This category is rounded out by Microsoft Windows RDP/RDS, which also has a payout of $200,000. Here’s a detailed look at the targets and payouts in the Server category:

Back to top

Local Escalation of Privilege Category

This category is a classic for Pwn2Own and focuses on attacks that originate from a standard user and result in executing code as a high-privileged user. A successful entry in this category must leverage a kernel vulnerability to escalate privileges. Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations returns as our Linux-based target, while Apple macOS, and Microsoft Windows 11 return as targets in this category. Prior exploits in this category have won Pwnie awards, so they’re always interesting to see. Here’s a detailed look at the targets and payouts in this category:

Back to top

The Container Category

We’re excited to have this category return for its third season, and we’re hopeful that even more contestants will target one of these container targets. For an attempt to be ruled a success against these three, the exploit must be launched from within the guest container/microVM and execute arbitrary code on the host operating system. Again, with help from AWS, Firecracker returns as a target with a prize of $100,000. Here are the targets and payouts for this category:

Back to top

AI Database Category

In the past, AI Hackathons have focused on using AI to develop vulnerabilities or other offensive frameworks. We’re opening up the models and various components themselves for exploitation. The first AI sub-category focuses on databases. An attempt in this category must be launched from the contestant’s laptop. Here’s a look at the targets and awards in the AI Database category:

Back to top

The Coding Agent Category

Let’s face it. At some point or another, we’ve probably all vibe coded something. There’s no shame in that, but how secure are the tools we use for vibe coding? Well, let’s take the most popular choices and find out. A successful entry must interact with a contestant-controlled resource (e.g. web page, repository, media file) to exploit a vulnerability within the coding agent. The attack vector of the entry must be a common coding agent use case. There are few things out of scope here as well. UI spoofing or misrepresentation unrelated to permission prompts, model jailbreaks or prompt outputs that do not cross security boundaries, and vulnerabilities that require unsafe or permission-less modes are just a few of the things not allowed. As this is a new category, please read the rules carefully to ensure your entry qualifies. Here’s a look at the targets and awards in the AI Coding Agent category:

Back to top

The Local Inference Category

We couldn’t leave local inference and LLMs out of Pwn2Own. These products claim to provide enhanced data privacy, zero-cost inference, lower latency, and fully offline functionality. We’ll see how the security stacks up. An attempt in this category must be launched from the contestant’s laptop within the contest network. Here are the targets and payouts for the Local Inference category:

Back to top

The NVIDIA Category

Our last AI sub-category focuses solely on NVIDIA products. For network accessible targets, an attempt must be launched from the contestant's laptop within the contest network. For NV Container Toolkit, the attempt must be launched from within a crafted container image and execute arbitrary code on the host operating system. For Megatron Bridge, entries that leverage vulnerabilities pertaining to pickle deserialization or that leverage a vulnerability when “trust_remote_code=true” are out of scope. Here are the targets and payouts for the NVIDIA category:

Back to top

Conclusion

The complete rules for Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 are found here. As always, we highly encourage entrants to read the rules thoroughly if they choose to participate. If you are thinking about participating but have specific configuration or rule-related questions, email us. Questions asked over X (nee Twitter), BlueSky, or other means will not be answered. Registration is required to ensure we have sufficient resources on hand at the event. Please contact ZDI at pwn2own@trendmicro.com to begin the registration process. Registration for onsite participation closes at 5 p.m. Central European Time on May 7, 2026.

Be sure to stay tuned to this blog and follow us on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, or Bluesky for the latest information and updates about the contest. We look forward to seeing everyone in Germany, and we hope to see some of the best in the world show what they can do – vibe coded or not.

With special thanks to our Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 partners AWS, for providing their expertise and technology.

© 2026 Trend Micro Incorporated. All rights reserved. PWN2OWN, ZERO DAY INITIATIVE, ZDI, ZERO DAY INITIATIVE, TrendAI, and Trend Micro are trademarks or registered trademarks of Trend Micro Incorporated. All other trademarks and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

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

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

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

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

Cybersecurity industry tracking

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting details

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

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

Technical details

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

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

Reconnaissance

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

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

Resource development

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

Flowerbed framework

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

Catcher,
Certbot,
Nginx, and
Gardener.

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

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

Initial access

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

Figure 1: Example of malicious email

Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email

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

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

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

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

Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email

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

Persistence and credential access

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

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

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

Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element

Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element

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

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

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

Collection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exfiltration

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

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

DNS exfiltration

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

Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS

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

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

HTTPS exfiltration

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

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

Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catcher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup

Response strategies

Mitigations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Flowerbed infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

Phishing distribution

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

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

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

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

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

Post-compromise artifacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

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

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

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

Works cited

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

Acknowledgements

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

Disclaimer of endorsement

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

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

Purpose

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

Contact

United States organizations

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

Dutch organizations

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

Australian organizations

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

Canadian organizations

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

New Zealand organizations

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

United Kingdom organizations

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

Estonia organizations

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

Finnish organizations

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

French organizations

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

Italian Organizations

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

Moldovan organizations

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

Polish organizations

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

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

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

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

Honor Magic V6 im Test: Das fast perfekte Foldable

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:59:23 +0200

Luke Baker

Auf einen Blick

Pro

Wunderschönes, schlankes Design
Große, helle Displays
Hervorragende Kameras
Coole Software-Funktionen

Kontra

Hoher Preis
MagicOS kann gelegentlich frustrierend sein

Fazit

Das Honor Magic V6 ist ein Falt-Smartphone, das einfach alles kann. Es ist schlank, robust, leistungsstark und sieht gut aus. Die Kameras gehören zu den besten, die Software bietet einige raffinierte Funktionen und die Akkulaufzeit ist außergewöhnlich. Besitzer eines Magic V5 werden wahrscheinlich kaum einen Grund für ein Upgrade sehen, aber für alle anderen ist es eine gute Wahl – sofern Sie es sich leisten können.

Das Honor Magic V6 wurde ursprünglich bereits im März in China vorgestellt, doch es dauerte eine Weile, bis es den Weg nach Europa fand. Nun ist es endlich in Europa erhältlich und strebt den Titel des bislang besten Falt-Smartphones an.

Leider ist die Konkurrenz für Honor stärker denn je, und sie wird noch härter werden, sobald Apples seit Langem gemunkeltes Foldable auf den Markt kommt. Bietet dieses schlanke Kraftpaket genug, um weiterhin überzeugend zu bleiben?

Es sieht auf jeden Fall vielversprechend aus, verfügt über einen der größten Akkus aller jemals erschienenen Falt-Smartphones, ist das erste mit IP69-Zertifizierung und gehört dennoch zu den dünnsten Modellen. Das ist schon mal ein guter Anfang. Ich habe es in den vergangenen Wochen auf Herz und Nieren geprüft, und hier ist mein Fazit.

Design & Verarbeitung

Aluminiumrahmen, Rückseite aus Verbundfasermaterial
219 g, NanoCrystal Shield-Glas
IP69-zertifiziert

Das Honor Magic V6 sieht dem Magic V5 sehr ähnlich, wobei der auffälligste Unterschied in der Form des Kamerarahmens liegt. Dieser ist nun kantiger und weist eine achteckige Form auf. Auch neue Farbvarianten tragen dazu bei, es von der Vorgängergeneration abzugrenzen.

Luke Baker

Die rote Version ist wahrscheinlich die auffälligste; sie verfügt über eine tiefrote, fast blutrote Rückseite mit strukturierter Oberfläche. Ich besitze die goldene Version, die ebenfalls sehr auffällig ist. Freunde haben bemerkt, dass es wie ein Smartphone aussieht, das ein saudischer Prinz oder Kim Kardashian benutzen würde.

Die Farbe schimmert leicht, wenn Licht darauf fällt; sowohl am Scharnier als auch auf der Rückseite ist ein dezentes, sich wiederholendes Dreiecksmuster zu erkennen, und es bleibt irgendwie frei von Fingerabdrücken, obwohl es ziemlich glänzend ist. Das sieht wirklich cool aus. Auch die mitgelieferte Hülle ist von höchster Qualität, mit einem cremefarbenen Kunstlederbezug und einem roségoldenen Kamerarahmen, der gleichzeitig als ausklappbarer Ständer dient.

Wenn Sie etwas suchen, das etwas weniger Aufmerksamkeit auf sich zieht, gibt es natürlich auch traditionellere Modelle in Schwarz und Weiß. Letzteres hat zudem einen versteckten Vorteil: Mit nur 8,75 Millimetern im geschlossenen Zustand ist es das dünnste Modell der Reihe, und Honor geht davon aus, dass es derzeit das dünnste Falt-Smartphone auf dem Markt ist.

Ich habe das weiße Modell nicht ausprobiert, und vielleicht ist es tatsächlich spürbar schlanker, aber meiner Meinung nach sieht die goldene Version definitiv etwas dicker aus und fühlt sich auch so wie mein 8,9 Millimeter dickes Galaxy Z Fold 7 an.

Das ist allerdings Haarspalterei, denn dieses Smartphone ist immer noch dünner als viele Flaggschiff-Smartphones im Barrenformat. Ob es nun das dünnste ist oder nicht – es ist auf jeden Fall dünn genug, um sich in der Hosentasche angenehm anzufühlen.

Luke Baker

Erwähnenswert ist auch, dass das Cover-Display nun flach ist und eine symmetrischere Form aufweist. Dadurch sieht das Smartphone im zusammengeklappten Zustand noch mehr wie ein herkömmliches Barren-Handy aus, doch die unvermeidliche, eckige Kante am Scharnier verrät es ein wenig.

So wichtig die Abmessungen eines Klapphandys auch sind, ebenso entscheidend ist die Robustheit. Und glücklicherweise ist das Honor Magic V6 robust wie ein Panzer gebaut.

Es verfügt über die Schutzklasse IP69 – die höchste aller faltbaren Smartphones. Das bedeutet, dass es praktisch staubdicht ist und sowohl das Eintauchen in Süßwasser als auch den Strahl von heißem Wasser problemlos aushält. Die Technologie der faltbaren Smartphones hat große Fortschritte gemacht.

Es ist zudem besonders robust konstruiert, mit kratzfestem „NanoCrystal Shield“-Glas auf der Vorderseite und einem „Super Steel“-Scharnier, das die Stoßfestigkeit verbessert.

SGS-Zertifizierungen untermauern diese Angaben ebenfalls, da das Smartphone für seine Fallfestigkeit mit 5 Sternen ausgezeichnet wurde. Ich habe mein Testgerät nicht allzu grob behandelt, aber es ist beruhigend zu wissen, dass es unversehrt bleiben dürfte, sollte mir einmal ein Ausrutscher unterlaufen.

Bildschirm & Lautsprecher

Außen: 6,52 Zoll, 1.080 x 2.420, OLED, 120 Hertz
Innen: 7,95 Zoll, 2.172 × 2.352, OLED, 120 Hertz
Stereolautsprecher

Bei Falt-Smartphones dreht sich alles um den Bildschirm. Beginnen wir also mit dem Star der Show: dem inneren Display. Mit einer Diagonale von knapp unter 8 Zoll gehört es zu den größten Falt-Smartphones im Buchformat auf dem Markt.

Es ist nahezu perfekt quadratisch, was sich hervorragend für die parallele Nutzung zweier Apps eignet.

Luke Baker

Dieses flexible Display verfügt über eine Bildwiederholfrequenz von 120 Hertz und erreicht eine beeindruckende Spitzenhelligkeit von 5.000 Nits. Solche Helligkeitsangaben sollten Sie zwar stets mit einer gehörigen Portion Skepsis betrachten, doch unabhängig davon handelt es sich um ein sehr helles Display, das auch im Freien gut ablesbar ist.

Der innere Bildschirm ist mit einer glänzenden Schutzfolie versehen (wenn auch mit einer Antireflexbeschichtung), was sowohl Vor- als auch Nachteile mit sich bringt. Wie ich bereits in anderen Testberichten zu Falt-Smartphones erwähnt habe, kaschieren mattierte Schutzfolien die Falz zwar besser, ziehen aber auch Fingerabdrücke an. Diese hier verschmiert nicht so leicht, doch trotz aller Bemühungen von Honor treten entlang der Falz einige unerwünschte Reflexionen auf.

Luke Baker

Apropos: Die Falz ist bewundernswert flach, und noch vor nicht allzu langer Zeit wäre sie die beste gewesen, die mir je begegnet wäre. Allerdings nutze ich das Oppo Find N6 seit seiner Markteinführung fast täglich, und leider kann dieses Modell da nicht ganz mithalten.

Es ist dennoch äußerst beeindruckend und um Längen besser als das Pixel 10 Pro Fold. Auch im Vergleich zum Galaxy Z Fold 7 fällt die Falz etwas weniger auf.

Was das Außendisplay betrifft, so ist es fast nicht von dem Bildschirm eines Flaggschiff-Handys im Barren-Format zu unterscheiden, abgesehen davon, dass es ganz leicht schmaler ist als üblich. Es verfügt über schöne, schmale Einfassungen an allen Seiten, eine flinke Bildwiederholfrequenz von 120 Hertz und eine noch höhere Spitzenhelligkeit von 6.000 Nits.

Wie bereits bei den letzten Generationen der faltbaren Honor-Modelle gibt es keine nennenswerten Nachteile bei der Nutzung des zusammengeklappten Telefons; es fühlt sich einfach wie ein normales Smartphone an. Wenn Sie dann einen größeren Bildschirm für Ihre Inhalte, Spiele oder Multitasking benötigen, klappen Sie es einfach auf.

Luke Baker

Wie üblich hat Honor einiges in Funktionen zum Augenschutz investiert, und beide Bildschirme unterstützen eine PWM-Dimmung mit 4.320 Hertz. Das werden Sie besonders zu schätzen wissen, wenn Sie empfindlich auf Flackern reagieren. Beide Bildschirme unterstützen zudem die Eingabe per Stylus, allerdings hatte ich leider keinen Honor-Stylus zur Hand, um dies auszuprobieren.

Die luxuriösen Displays werden durch ein ordentliches Lautsprecherset ergänzt. Das Stereopaar erzeugt eine schöne, breite Klangbühne, kann mehr als laut genug werden und bietet eine ordentliche Basswiedergabe. Sie können zwar nicht mit den bassbetonten Lautsprechern des Magic 8 Pro mithalten, aber bei einem so schlanken Gehäuse sind die Möglichkeiten nun einmal begrenzt.

Technische Daten & Leistung

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5
16 GB RAM
512 GB Speicher

Das Magic V6 verfügt über den leistungsstärksten Chip von Qualcomm, den Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, und das globale Modell ist mit 16 GB RAM und 512 GB Speicher ausgestattet. Bei einem so schlanken Falt-Smartphone stellt die Wärmeableitung stets eine Herausforderung dar, doch Honor hat hier eine großzügig dimensionierte Vapor-Chamber verbaut, um eine optimale Leistung zu gewährleisten.

Luke Baker

Das V6 hat meine täglichen Leistungsanforderungen problemlos erfüllt. Bei einem Falt-Smartphone habe ich oft drei Apps gleichzeitig geöffnet, wechsle zwischen ihnen hin und her und spiele häufig gleichzeitig Musik ab oder streame Videos. Selbst dann kam das Smartphone kaum ins Schwitzen.

Man muss schon ein ziemlich anspruchsvolles Spiel starten, um dieses Smartphone ein wenig ins Schwitzen zu bringen, und wie es der Zufall so will, bin ich ziemlich süchtig nach NTE: Neverness to Everness (ein Open-World-Spiel mit atemberaubender Grafik und einer riesigen Stadtkarte, mit deren Darstellung die meisten Smartphones zu kämpfen haben). Doch das Magic V6 hatte damit kaum Probleme.

Das Spiel lief bei der Grafikvoreinstellung „Extreme“ flüssig mit 60 FPS, und obwohl es sich ziemlich stark erwärmte – insbesondere im Bereich der Kamera –, schien die Leistung darunter nicht zu leiden. Die beste Erfahrung machte ich mit einem GameSir-Clamp-Controller, der die Wärme von meinen Handflächen fernhielt.

Luke Baker

Honor Magic V6 – Benchmark-Ergebnisse

Was die Benchmark-Ergebnisse angeht, wird es recht interessant. Während die meisten Ergebnisse hervorragend waren, hatte das Smartphone erhebliche Schwierigkeiten, den 3DMark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test abzuschließen. Normalerweise führe ich diesen Test bei aufgeklapptem Smartphone durch, doch es überhitzte sich und brach den Benchmark jedes Mal ab, wenn ich es versuchte.

Zugegebenermaßen war es in letzter Zeit recht warm, doch so etwas ist mir bisher noch nie passiert. Bei der Durchführung des Tests auf dem Cover-Display konnte es den Test mit einem ordentlichen Ergebnis abschließen, auf dem klappbaren Bildschirm war dies jedoch nicht möglich. Im alltäglichen Gebrauch hatte ich jedoch nie derartige Probleme.

Kameras

50-MP-Hauptkamera mit f/1,6
64 MP, f/2,5, 3-fach-Tele
50 MP, f/2,2 Ultraweitwinkel
20 MP, f/2,2 Selfie-Kamera

Das Honor Magic V6 verfügt über dieselbe Kamera-Hardware wie die Vorgängergeneration, was bedeutet, dass es keine nennenswerten Neuerungen gibt.

Allerdings verfügte das V5 bereits über eine der beeindruckendsten Kameraausstattungen unter allen faltbaren Smartphones, und die Konkurrenz hat sich in dieser Hinsicht nicht sonderlich ins Zeug gelegt – daher gehört es nach wie vor zu den Besten.

Luke Baker

Auf der Rückseite befindet sich eine 50-MP-Hauptkamera mit einem Sensor von ansehnlicher Größe (1/1,56 Zoll) und einem lichtstarken f/1,6-Objektiv. Hinzu kommen eine 50-MP-Ultraweitwinkelkamera mit einem extrem weiten Sichtfeld (entspricht 13 mm) sowie ein ausgezeichnetes 64-MP-Teleobjektiv. Außerdem gibt es zwei 20-MP-Selfie-Kameras, von denen jeweils eine durch das jeweilige Display ragt.

Dies ist eine äußerst vielseitige Objektivausstattung, mit der Sie alles aufnehmen können – von weitläufigen Landschaften bis zu intimen Porträts. Wie üblich hat mir die Verwendung des Teleobjektivs am meisten Spaß gemacht, und dies könnte die beste Tele-Kamera sein, die jemals in einem faltbaren Smartphone verbaut wurde.

Es verfügt über einen recht großen 1/2-Zoll-Sensor und kann aus sehr kurzer Entfernung fokussieren. Ihr Motiv muss sich lediglich etwa 20 Zentimeter vom Objektiv entfernt befinden, und in Kombination mit der Brennweite von 70 mm (äquivalent) entsteht so eine schöne perspektivische Kompression und ein natürliches Bokeh.

Natürlich können Sie mit einem digitalen Ausschnitt noch weiter zoomen, und die Kamera-App ermöglicht Ihnen auf Wunsch eine bis zu 100-fache Vergrößerung. Bei einer Vergrößerung von mehr als 10-fach können Sie generative KI nutzen, um die Bilder zu bereinigen, doch auch ohne diese Funktion erhalten Sie bereits bei etwa 20-facher Vergrößerung brauchbare Bilder.

Ich habe bereits erwähnt, wie weitwinklig das Ultraweitwinkelobjektiv ist, und das gefällt mir besonders gut daran; ansonsten ist es jedoch im Vergleich zu den anderen Objektiven definitiv ein Qualitätsverlust.

Nachts ist es zudem am wenigsten überzeugend, da Bewegungsunschärfe dort nur schwer zu bewältigen ist. Bei den richtigen Lichtverhältnissen ist es jedoch zu wirklich beeindruckenden Aufnahmen fähig.

Luke Baker

Die Hauptkamera ist wie immer die zuverlässigste des Trios. Dank des größeren Sensors schneidet sie bei schlechten Lichtverhältnissen am besten ab und liefert tagsüber etwas schärfere Bilder als die anderen Kameras.

Die Selfie-Kameras sind nichts Besonderes. Sie erfüllen ihren Zweck und eignen sich für Zoom-Anrufe, doch wenn man auf der Rückseite so beeindruckende Kameras hat, lohnt es sich wirklich, das Smartphone umzudrehen und den Bildschirm auf der Rückseite zu nutzen, um wirklich beeindruckende Fotos zu machen.

Die Bildverarbeitung von Honor kann etwas unbeständig sein, aber ich habe den Eindruck, dass sie immer konsistenter wird, und wenn sie funktioniert, lassen sich wirklich atemberaubende Bilder erzielen.

Mein größter Kritikpunkt ist die Bewegungsunschärfe im Porträtmodus. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, woran es liegt, aber ich erhalte viele unscharfe Aufnahmen, wenn die künstliche Hintergrundunschärfe aktiviert ist – selbst bei guten Lichtverhältnissen.

Ansonsten bin ich mit den Bildern, die ich mit dem Magic V6 aufgenommen habe, sehr zufrieden. Die Harcourt-Porträtmodi sind so beeindruckend wie eh und je, und mit den übrigen Filtern lässt sich der Look Ihrer Fotos ziemlich drastisch verändern. Besonders gut gefällt mir der Filter „Nostalgic Negative“, der einen schönen, kontrastreichen Cross-Entwicklungs-Look mit blauen Schatten erzeugt.

Was die Videoaufnahmen angeht, ist das Angebot etwas weniger umfangreich. Das soll nicht heißen, dass es schlecht ist, aber nachdem ich viel Zeit mit dem Oppo Find N6 verbracht habe, habe ich mich an ein ordentliches Log-Profil, 4K-120-Aufnahmen und Dolby Vision gewöhnt. Nichts davon ist hier vorhanden. Es gibt zwar ein Log-Profil, dieses funktioniert jedoch nur mit dem Hauptsensor und erzeugt ungewöhnlich körnige Schatten.

Wenn Sie jedoch keine ganz so professionellen Ansprüche haben, werden Sie mit der Videoleistung wahrscheinlich sehr zufrieden sein. Sie können mit jeder Kamera bis zu 4K bei 60 FPS aufnehmen, mit Ausnahme der Selfie-Kamera, die maximal 4K bei 30 FPS erreicht. Die Bildstabilisierung ist gut, und auch die Mikrofone sind ordentlich.

Akkulaufzeit & Aufladen

6.660-mAh-Akku
80-Watt-Laden über Kabel
66 Watt kabelloses Laden

Das Honor Magic V6 verfügt über den größten Akku aller faltbaren Smartphones, die ich bisher getestet habe. Irgendwie ist es Honor gelungen, einen 6660-mAh-Akku in dieses hauchdünne Gehäuse zu integrieren. Samsun wird hoffentlich davon lernen.

Diese Kapazität verblasst zwar im Vergleich zur chinesischen 1-TB-Version dieses Smartphones, die über einen erstaunlichen 7.150-mAh-Akku verfügt, doch wie wir in letzter Zeit oft gesehen haben, bedeuten die EU-Vorschriften, dass wir im Westen keinen ganz so massiven Akku erhalten können.

Luke Baker

Das spielt jedoch keine allzu große Rolle, denn dieser Akku ist mehr als gut genug. Obwohl ich den großen internen Bildschirm häufig nutzte und unzählige Fotos machte, reichte die Akkulaufzeit dieses Smartphones während des Großteils meiner Tests für eineinhalb Tage. Natürlich verkürzt intensives Gaming die Laufzeit etwas, aber Sie werden das Gerät selten, wenn überhaupt, vor dem Schlafengehen aufladen müssen.

Auch das Aufladen erfolgt schnell, vorausgesetzt, Sie verfügen über ein ausreichend leistungsstarkes Netzteil (im Lieferumfang ist lediglich ein USB-C-Kabel enthalten), um die 80-Watt-Geschwindigkeit nutzen zu können. Ich konnte das Gerät in nur einer halben Stunde von leer auf fast 70 Prozent aufladen; mehr kann man sich kaum wünschen.

Wenn Sie kabelloses Laden bevorzugen, ist dies ohne nennenswerte Einbußen bei der Geschwindigkeit möglich. Das Honor Magic V6 lässt sich mit einem offiziellen kabellosen Ladepad von Honor mit bis zu 66 Watt aufladen.

Software & Apps

MagicOS 10, basierend auf Android 16
Zahlreiche KI-Funktionen
Kompatibilität mit dem Apple-Ökosystem

Auf dem Magic V6 läuft MagicOS 10, Honors eigene Variante von Android 16. Es handelt sich im Wesentlichen um dieselbe Software, die wir bereits von den letzten Honor-Flaggschiffmodellen kennen. Wenn Sie also bereits eines dieser Modelle ausprobiert haben, werden Sie kaum Überraschungen erleben.

Luke Baker

Die Software von Honor kann die Meinungen spalten. Sie weicht ziemlich stark vom typischen Android-Erlebnis ab; stattdessen erinnert sie zunehmend an iOS. Ob das nun gut ist oder nicht, hängt ganz von Ihren Vorlieben ab.

Allerdings lässt sich die Benutzeroberfläche extrem gut anpassen – wenn Ihnen also das Design oder das Layout einer Funktion nicht gefällt, können Sie es höchstwahrscheinlich ändern.

Insgesamt gefällt sie mir recht gut. Sie wirkt schnell und reaktionsfreudig, sieht standardmäßig ansprechend aus und bietet zahlreiche Werkzeuge zur weiteren Anpassung. Wie bereits erwähnt, gibt es zahlreiche Anlehnungen an iOS, darunter einige „Liquid Glass“-ähnliche Elemente, einen „Dynamic Island“-Klon, geteilte Benachrichtigungen/Schnelleinstellungen sowie die Möglichkeit, die App-Übersicht zu deaktivieren.

Das sind zwar nicht die originellsten Entscheidungen, aber sie funktionieren gut, und die meisten sind vollkommen optional.

Honor bietet Ihnen eine Vielzahl von KI-Funktionen, darunter die üblichen Tools für Transkription, Übersetzung und Zusammenfassung sowie einige sehr fortschrittliche Funktionen zur Fotobearbeitung.

Luke Baker

Auch das Multitasking ist hervorragend. Sie können Apps im Split-View nebeneinander anzeigen und dann eine dritte hinzufügen, die nur am Rand des Bildschirms hervorblitzt und bei Bedarf sofort einsatzbereit ist. Oder, wenn Sie es vorziehen, können Sie schwebende Fenster nutzen und so noch mehr Inhalte gleichzeitig auf dem Bildschirm anzeigen.

Am spannendsten finde ich jedoch die Art und Weise, wie sich das Magic V6 in Apple-Produkte integrieren lässt. Insbesondere, wie gut es mit meinem Macbook zusammenarbeitet. Wenn Sie die Honor Workstation-App aus dem Mac App Store installieren, können Sie Dateien austauschen, zwischen Geräten kopieren und einfügen, Ihr Smartphone fernsteuern und das V6 sogar als drahtlosen zweiten Bildschirm nutzen.

Luke Baker

Doch damit ist der Spaß noch lange nicht vorbei. Das Honor Magic V6 kann auch nativ Dateien in Ihrem iCloud-Konto durchsuchen und verwalten, und mit Honor Connect können Sie Dateien auch per AirDrop zu und von iPhones übertragen. Das ist großartig, wenn Sie ständig zwischen verschiedenen Ökosystemen hin- und herwechseln (wie ich es oft tue).

Insgesamt ist es also ein solides Software-Erlebnis, das jedoch nicht ganz ohne Nachteile ist. Meine größte Kritik an Honor-Smartphones ist seit einigen Jahren unberücksichtigt geblieben. Das Akkumanagement ist extrem aggressiv und beendet standardmäßig Hintergrund-Apps mit rücksichtsloser Härte.

Das bedeutet, dass Sie häufig unter stark verzögerten Benachrichtigungen leiden, bis Sie einige Einstellungen anpassen und sicherstellen, dass diese Apps geöffnet bleiben.

Luke Baker

Das lässt sich zwar leicht beheben, und ich kann die Logik dahinter nachvollziehen – schließlich bieten Honor-Smartphones stets eine hervorragende Akkulaufzeit –, doch es ist äußerst ärgerlich, und ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn dieses Problem behoben würde.

Honor verspricht sieben Jahre lang Software-Updates und Sicherheitspatches für seine Flaggschiff-Geräte und liegt damit auf einer Stufe mit Samsung und Apple. Viel besser geht es kaum, auch wenn Sie möglicherweise eine Weile auf das auf Android 17 basierende MagicOS 11 warten müssen.

Preis & Verfügbarkeit

Das Honor Magic V6 kann ab sofort in Deutschland und den meisten anderen Ländern der Welt bestellt werden, wobei die USA wie üblich ausgeschlossen sind. Hierzulande liegt der Preis bei stolzen 2.299 Euro, wobei es bis zum 31. Juli noch einen Rabatt von 600 Euro gibt (Endpreis: 1.699,90 Euro).

Als besonderes Einführungsangebot legt Honor auch eine Reihe kostenloser Extras wie ein Tablet, einen Stift und ein Set Earbuds bei. Das macht eine Beurteilung des Preises ziemlich schwierig. Auf dem Papier ist das Magic V6 deutlich teurer als das V5, das im vergangenen Jahr für 1.999 Euro auf den Markt kam. Und das schmerzt, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, dass es seinem Vorgänger so ähnlich ist. Mit dem Rabatt ist es jedoch günstiger.

Preislich bewegt es sich trotzdem noch in einem ähnlichen Rahmen wie viele andere Falt-Smartphones, die wir getestet haben. Darunter das Motorola Razr Fold, das Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 und das Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold.

Sollten Sie das Honor Magic V6 kaufen?

Das Magic V6 ist zweifellos eines der attraktivsten faltbaren Smartphones, die derzeit auf dem Markt erhältlich sind. Die Hardware ist hervorragend, die Bildschirme sind beeindruckend, es ist leistungsstark und die Kameras sind erstklassig. Wenn Sie ein faltbares Smartphone mit großem Bildschirm suchen, aber bei den Kameras keine allzu großen Abstriche machen möchten, ist dies eine hervorragende Wahl.

Allerdings könnten versierte Käufer sich für das Vorjahresmodell entscheiden und für deutlich weniger Geld ein sehr ähnliches Gesamterlebnis erhalten. Es ist nach wie vor extrem leistungsstark und verfügt über dieselben Kameras. Es wird jedoch nicht ewig vorrätig sein.

Man sollte auch bedenken, dass das Galaxy Z Fold 8 und das Z Fold 8 Ultra voraussichtlich im Juli 2026 erscheinen werden, während Apples lang erwartetes faltbares iPhone wahrscheinlich im September vorgestellt wird. Ich persönlich würde mir daher erst einmal ansehen, was diese Modelle zu bieten haben, bevor ich den Sprung wage.

Wenn Sie nicht warten können, ist das Honor Magic V6 eine hervorragende Wahl und wird dies wahrscheinlich auch bleiben. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Samsung die Akkukapazität übertreffen wird, und ich bezweifle sehr, dass es in puncto Kameraleistung übertroffen wird. Abgesehen von ein paar kleinen Software-Mängeln ist es ein brillantes Smartphone.

Technische Daten

MagicOS 10, basierend auf Android 16
Außen: 6,52 Zoll, 1.080 x 2.420, OLED, 120 Hz
Innen: 7,95 Zoll, 2172 × 2352, OLED, 120 Hz
Fingerabdrucksensor im Ein-/Aus-Schalter
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5
16 GB RAM
512 GB Speicher
Kamera:
50 MP, f/1,6 Hauptkamera
64 MP, f/2,5, 3-fach-Teleobjektiv
50 MP, f/2,2 Ultraweitwinkel
Doppelte 20-MP-Selfie-Kamera mit f/2,2
Videoaufnahmen mit bis zu 4K bei 60 fps (Rückkamera)
Stereolautsprecher
Dual-SIM
WLAN 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e/7
Bluetooth 6.0
6660-mAh-Akku
80-W-Laden über Kabel
66 W kabelloses Laden
156,7 × 74,5 × 8,8 mm (zusammengeklappt)
IP69-zertifiziert
219 g
Farben: Gold, Rot, Weiß, Schwarz

(PC-Welt)

Principles every enterprise must test before the attack arrives

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:54 +0200

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

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

This wasn’t ransomware. There was no negotiation, no decryption key to buy, no easy way out. It was destruction — deliberate, coordinated and geopolitically motivated — not monetary.

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

Recovery is not just a technical exercise

The first assumption to break during a real crisis is the belief that recovery is purely technical.

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

The reality is that technical infrastructure almost always holds up better than human infrastructure. Organizations have built their recovery strategy around the assumption that someone competent will be awake, available and empowered when a cyber event happens.

Still, backups are only as good as their independence. Let’s be blunt: If your recovery infrastructure shares identity, authentication or network trust with your Microsoft tenant (such as Azure, Microsoft 365 or Teams), you don’t actually have a recovery plan; you have a false sense of one — and a liability. A recent survey found that while 90% of organizations express confidence in their ability to recover from a cyber incident, fewer than one in three ransomware victims fully recovered their data.

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

Most business continuity plans ignore ‘total blackout’

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

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

This is also where boards need to change the conversation. A study found that only 5% of companies have cybersecurity experts on their board of directors. Recovery time objectives (RTOs) should not be buried in technical appendices. It’s all jargon to boards. That makes translation essential. RTOs must be explained in terms of business impact. “We can recover in four hours” is a technical statement. “Every hour of downtime costs us $2.3M and creates regulatory exposure in three jurisdictions” is a board statement.

That is the level of clarity leaders need.

The most prepared organizations do not wait for an incident to educate the board. They bring the conversation forward proactively. They frame recovery in business terms: revenue, regulatory standing, customer trust and brand reputation.

The most effective framing is often simple. Show the most critical systems. Show what happens if each one is down for one hour, four hours, 24 hours and 72 hours. Show the current recovery capability against each and then show the gap.

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

Threat intelligence must be actionable, not archived

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s not wait for the next headline to ask, “Are we ready?” Have those conversations now. Test your assumptions. Close your gaps. Because in today’s threat landscape, resilience isn’t IT’s job — it’s everyone’s mandate.

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

Why I changed how I pitch AI: It’s no longer about saving money, but managing tokens and adoption

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:49 +0200

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

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

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

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

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

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

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

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

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

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

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

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

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

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

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

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

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

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

Sponsor mismatch is the silent killer of enterprise transformation

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:49 +0200

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

(g+) Tech Asia: Inside Taiwan's most ambitious space mission yet

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:02:18 +0200

Big spending increase propels aim of homegrown satellite constellation, launch site and first rocket by 2034 Von Cheng Ting-Fang und Lauly Li (Raumfahrt, Golem Plus)

CVE-2026-16381 | Mozilla Firefox DNS cross-domain policy (Nessus ID 329492)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 16:33:30 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Mozilla Firefox. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component DNS. The manipulation results in permissive cross-domain policy with untrusted domains. This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-16381. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

CVE-2025-15437 | LigeroSmart up to 6.1.24 Environment Variable REQUEST_URI cross site scripting (Issue 278 / EUVD-2026-0702)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 16:33:25 +0200

A vulnerability has been found in LigeroSmart up to 6.1.24 and classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the component Environment Variable Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument REQUEST_URI results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability was named CVE-2025-15437. The attack may be initiated remotely. In addition, an exploit is available. The affected component should be upgraded.

CVE-2026-20915 | Checkmk up to 2.5.0b1 cross site scripting

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 16:33:16 +0200

A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in Checkmk up to 2.5.0b1. Affected is an unknown function. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability was named CVE-2026-20915. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

CVE-2026-3191 | teckel Minify HTML Plugin up to 2.1.12 on WordPress Setting minify_html_menu_options cross-site request forgery

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:32:21 +0200

A vulnerability has been found in teckel Minify HTML Plugin up to 2.1.12 on WordPress and classified as problematic. The affected element is the function minify_html_menu_options of the component Setting Handler. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-3191. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available. The affected component should be upgraded.

CVE-2026-0397 | PowerDNS DNSdist up to 1.9.11/2.0.2 cross-domain policy

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:12:49 +0200

A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in PowerDNS DNSdist up to 1.9.11/2.0.2. This impacts an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to permissive cross-domain policy with untrusted domains. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-0397. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

The Crow Girl season 2 is the 'unhinged, wild and deadly' crime drama you need to stream on Paramount+ and Channel 5 this weekend — I still can't wrap my head around its shocking finale

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 11:11:58 +0200

What do you get when you cross a group of dead bodies, an unhinged psychologist, a vulnerable detective, and the mother of all unforeseen twists? The Crow Girl season 2, of course.

CVE-2022-40724 | Ping Identity PingFederate GET Request /pf/idprofile.ping cross-site request forgery (EUVD-2022-43993)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:25:07 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Ping Identity PingFederate. Affected is an unknown function of the file /pf/idprofile.ping of the component GET Request Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2022-40724. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

Android CLI Now Stable 1.0: Accelerate developing for Android using any agent

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:49 +0200

Posted by Simona Milanovic and Ben Trengrove, Developer Relations Engineers

As Android developers, you have many choices when it comes to the agents, tools, command-line interfaces (CLI), and LLMs you use for app development. Whether you use Gemini in Android Studio, Antigravity 2.0, Antigravity CLI, or third-party agents like Anthropic's Claude Code or OpenAI'sCodex, our mission remains the same: to ensure that high-quality Android development is possible everywhere.

At Google I/O ‘26, we shared the latest leaps forward in agentic development, and showcased some of the newest capabilities of Android CLI—now stable at version 1.0 and ready for all Android developers to use. From new skills to enabling agent access to powerful Android Studio capabilities, we’re giving your agents the right tools to build alongside you.

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

Android development unlocked for Antigravity

Google Antigravity now includes an optional bundle of Android resources—including the Android CLI and skills—that you can install. You can either install the bundle during onboarding after installation, or later from the Settings > Customizations > Build With Google Plugins menu.

This provides Antigravity with all the powerful tools and knowledge of Android CLI, enabling it to perform the core tasks necessary for Android app development more easily and efficiently—from creating projects to deploying your app on a new Android virtual device.

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

Unlocking Android Studio capabilities for any agent

Android CLI provides a lightweight interface for AI Agents to perform tasks and retrieve knowledge about Android development. However, there's benefits to specialization — Android Studio contains over a decade of Android expertise, built to handle even the most complex Android projects. This includes Android Studio's powerful static analysis engine, refactoring tools, dependency management, UI design and rendering libraries, and more. AI Agents can now tap into Android Studio's tools to gain many of these same capabilities.

Your agents can now use Android CLI to access powerful capabilities of Android Studio.

The latest version of Android CLI introduces the new android studio command. This enables the agent of your choice to leverage the deep, contextual capabilities of Android Studio to better understand and perform actions on an open Android project. By running Android Studio alongside your preferred agent with Android CLI, your agent’s tasks can more efficiently navigate the codebase to produce more precise code changes. And, when you use Android CLI to create and iterate on your project, transitioning to Android Studio is much easier, so that you can use the purpose built tools—such as, performance profilers, Compose Previews, and Android Device Streaming—to get that production-grade polish.

When you have a project open in the latest preview version of Android Studio Quail, you (or your agent) can run the following command to check whether Android CLI has a connection established with your open project:

$ android studio check
pid: 32942
version: Android Studio
Projects:
    READY     JetSet /Users/adarshf/AndroidStudioProjects/jetset-main

From there, the agents can use the android studio command to access powerful IDE tools to interact with projects more efficiently. Key commands include:

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

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

$ android studio find-declaration HotelDetailScreen
$ android studio analyze-file .../JetPacker/feature/detail/src/main/java/com/example/jetset/feature/detail/HotelDetailScreen.kt
$ android studio open-file feature/detail/src/main/java/com/example/jetset/feature/detail/HotelDetailScreen.kt

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

More ways to get started

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

winget install -e --id Google.AndroidCLI

We’ve also updated the installation to a user-local directory, by default. You can find the commands for all supported operating systems plus additional download options on the Android CLI page.

Support for Journeys

Journeys are natural language descriptions of core user experiences.

We are also introducing support for Journeys. With Journeys tools and skills included with Android CLI, any agent of your choice can now create and run Journeys—which are natural language descriptions of user journeys for your app that are saved directly to your project.

(sped up) An agent running a Journey it generated for an app.

Agents can run these journeys using the Android CLI to navigate your app exactly like a user would. This unlocks entirely new ways to test, validate, or collect data across the critical experiences of your app, all driven by natural language and executed by your agent.

Expanding Android skills

To help models better understand and execute specific patterns that follow our best practices, we are continuing to expand our library of Android skills. We’re shipping new skills that make Android development everywhere more capable, efficient, and productive:

Display Glasses and Jetpack Compose Glimmer for XR: Provides guidelines for developing projected applications for Android Display Glasses using the Jetpack Compose Glimmer UI toolkit.
Migration to CameraX: Helps you migrate legacy Android camera implementations (Camera1 or raw Camera2 APIs) to CameraX.
Perfetto SQL: Translates natural language data prompts into Perfetto SQL queries and executes them against a local trace file.
Adaptive UI: Instructions to make or update an app's UI so that it adapts to different Android devices
Testing setup: Creates a basic testing strategy.
Styles: Helps with adoption of the new Jetpack Compose Style API for new components, and supports migration to Styles API.
AppFunctions: Analyzes Android codebases to recommend and implement new AppFunctions, and refines KDoc documentation for Model Context Protocol optimization.

You can add these new skills to your workflow directly from the command line. To help your agents understand and use Android CLI right away, you can initialize your environment and install the base android-cli skill by running:

android init

From there, you can browse and set up your agent workflow by searching for the exact capabilities your agent needs:

android skills list

Once you've found the right skill, install it to your environment by running:

android skills add –skill=

Get started today

To download the stable 1.0 release of the Android CLI, explore the new tools, and browse the complete documentation, head over to d.android.com/tools/agents today! Also, make sure you update to the latest preview version of Android Studio to unlock the latest features that Android CLI offers. We can't wait to see what you build with Android CLI 1.0 and how these new features supercharge your daily workflows. Join our vibrant community on LinkedIn, Medium, YouTube, or X and share your feedback.

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

Android 17 is here

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:36 +0200

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

Today we're releasing Android 17 and making it available on most supported Pixel devices. Look for new devices running Android 17 in the coming months.

Android 17 marks the start of our transition to an intelligence system, putting your apps at the center. It's shifting to an adaptive-first development standard by introducing mandatory large-screen resizability, all while delivering next-generation privacy, security, media, camera, and performance. We'll cover all that in this post, as well as how we're bringing together next generation tools, libraries, and agent skills to help your apps embrace the opportunity.

Throughout the past year, from our Canary channel to our Beta releases, we’ve collaborated with you in the developer community to build a platform you and your users can trust. To that end, this moment marks the availability of the source code at the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). This allows you to examine the source code for a deeper understanding of how Android works.

Let's dive deeper into Android 17.

An intelligence system

With deep integration between hardware, software and AI, we’re transforming Android from an operating system to an intelligence system. It's about delivering new helpful experiences that anticipate user needs, and it brings more opportunities for engagement with your apps. To that end, Android 17 expands the capabilities of AppFunctions, a platform API with a corresponding Jetpack library. It allows you to contribute your app's unique capabilities as orchestratable "tools" for Android MCP, the on-device equivalent of the Model Context Protocol. AI agents and assistants (like Google Gemini) can discover and execute AppFunctions to perform workflows on behalf of the user with direct access to the app's local state.

The Jetpack library, currently in alpha, makes adding AppFunctions as easy as annotating a class and adding KDoc comments.

/**
 * A note app's [AppFunction]s.
 */
class NoteFunctions(
    private val noteRepository: NoteRepository
) {
    /**
     * Adds a new note to the app.
     *
     * @param appFunctionContext The execution context.
     * @param title The title of the note.
     * @param content The note's content.
     */
    @AppFunction(isDescribedByKDoc = true)
    suspend fun createNote(
        appFunctionContext: AppFunctionContext,
        title: String,
        content: String
    ): Note {
        return noteRepository.createNote(title, content)
    }
}

We’ve also launched an AppFunctions agent skill that analyzes your app’s key workflows, automatically generates the required Kotlin code, optimizes your KDocs for LLM tool-calling, and provides ADB commands for testing and debugging.

The Gemini integration is currently in a private preview with trusted testers, but you can begin preparing your apps now. In addition to ADB commands to execute your AppFunctions, we've provided a test agent app that includes an interface to discover and execute your app functions and simulate an AI agent integration. Join our integration early access program at goo.gle/eap-af for a chance to be among the first apps to deploy AppFunctions to production.

Adaptive-first

Your users no longer rely on a single form factor; they transition between phones, foldables, tablets, laptops, automotive displays, and immersive XR environments. Now, with over 580 million large screen devices in the hands of users and the forthcoming launch of Googlebooks, the next generation of ChromeOS built on the Android stack, adaptive is no longer just a technical goal. It’s a massive opportunity to reach highly engaged users, which is one of the reasons we're shifting to an adaptive-first development standard.

No resizability/orientation restrictions on large screens

To ensure apps deliver a premium experience across all form factors, including mobile devices running in desktop mode on connected displays, Android 17 (API level 37) removes the developer opt-out for orientation and resizability restrictions on large screen devices (sw > 600 dp) for apps targeting API level 37. The system will ignore legacy manifest attributes and runtime APIs, including screenOrientation, setRequestedOrientation(), resizeableActivity=false, and aspect ratio constraints (minAspectRatio/maxAspectRatio). Games (based on app category in Google Play) remain exempt. Your app must be ready to adapt to any window size, respect the user's preferred device posture, and support free-form windowing natively.

Next-gen multitasking: App Bubbles, Bubble Bar, and desktop interactive PiP

Android 17 introduces powerful new windowing capabilities that redefine how users multitask, demanding even greater layout flexibility from your apps:

App Bubbles: Moving beyond the messaging bubbles API, users can now transform any app into a floating bubble by long-pressing its icon on the launcher. This feature is available across phones, foldables, and tablets, enabling lightweight multitasking for any workflow.
The Bubble Bar: On large screens (tablets and foldables), the system taskbar now includes a dedicated Bubble Bar to organize, transition between, and dock these floating app bubbles.
Desktop interactive PiP: In desktop environments, Android 17 introduces interactive Picture-in-Picture (PiP). Unlike traditional PiP windows which are read-only, these pinned windows remain fully interactive while staying always-on-top of other application windows.

App Bubbles and Bubble Bar in action

Activity recreation updates

To prevent disruptive state loss and stutter, Android 17 updates the default behavior for Activity recreation. The system will no longer restart activities by default for typical configuration changes that do not require a full UI redraw (including CONFIG_KEYBOARD, CONFIG_KEYBOARD_HIDDEN, CONFIG_NAVIGATION, CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN, and CONFIG_COLOR_MODE).
Instead, running activities will receive these updates via onConfigurationChanged(), enabling smooth transitions. If your application explicitly relies on a full restart to reload resources for these changes, you must now explicitly opt-in using the new android:recreateOnConfigChanges manifest attribute.

Continue On

Android 17 adds Continue On to help users seamlessly transition a task between Android devices. The user sees a suggestion for the most recently opened app from their mobile device in their tablet taskbar, providing a one-tap affordance to launch the app and deep-link where they left off. Continue on can support app-to-web transitions, including falling back to using the web if the app isn't installed.

Handoff Suggestion on a Tablet

class MyHandoffActivity : Activity() {

    ...

  override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
    // Do stuff
    ...
    // Enable handoff
    setHandoffEnabled(true, null)
  }

  // Override and implement onHandoffActivityDataRequested
  override fun onHandoffActivityDataRequested(handoffRequestInfo: HandoffActivityDataRequestInfo) : HandoffActivityData {
    // Create and return handoff data
  }
}

Go adaptive-first with Jetpack Compose

To help you adapt your apps to meet the new Android 17 requirements, we've launched the Jetpack Compose adaptive skill. This AI-powered developer workflow helps you implement the best adaptive practices:

Adaptive navigation: Automatically transition between bottom navigation bars on mobile and edge-anchored navigation rails on large screens using NavigationSuiteScaffold from the Material 3 Adaptive library.
Multi-pane layouts: Implement list-detail and supporting pane layouts natively using Navigation 3 Scenes (ListDetailSceneStrategy and SupportingPaneSceneStrategy) instead of fragile fragment transactions.
FlexBox & Grid APIs: Utilize Compose 1.11's dynamic layout components to easily adjust row and column spans on the fly, ensuring your content always fills the space beautifully.
Advanced non-touch input: Leverage Compose 1.11's enhanced trackpad and mouse support, including native focus rings and new APIs (like TrackpadInjectionScope and performTrackpadInput) to easily test and deliver a true "laptop-class" experience on Googlebooks and Desktop Mode.
Dynamic window states: Leverage Compose's reactive state model to seamlessly adapt your UI when the app transitions from full screen to a floating App Bubble or an interactive Desktop PiP window, ensuring a premium experience even at minimal dimensions.

Android is Compose-first

Compose offers the easiest way to build adaptive apps, and that's just one of the many reasons we believe that all Android UI should be built with Compose. To that end, Android development is now Compose-first. All new Android APIs, libraries, tools, and developer guidance will be built exclusively for Jetpack Compose. Legacy View components (in the android.widget package) and View-based Jetpack libraries (like Fragments, RecyclerView, and ViewPager) are now in maintenance mode. They will receive only critical bug fixes, and no new features.

TIP
Ready to migrate? Use our AI-driven XML to Compose Migration Skill to automatically analyze your legacy View layouts and convert them into highly-adaptive Compose code.

Performance & efficiency

App performance means a smooth user interface, fast app start times, and efficient multitasking; Android 17 has impactful improvements in all of these areas.

App memory limits

Memory usage is one of the silent foundations of overall performance. When a foreground app or service grows unchecked, memory management spikes CPU and battery utilization and eventually leads to the termination of other well-behaved cached apps and background jobs, ultimately forcing slower cold starts and impaired multitasking.

Starting in Android 17, the system will enforce strict app memory limits based on a device's total RAM, abruptly terminating offending processes. New things to help you navigate these tighter requirements:

R8 Optimizer: The R8 optimizer significantly reduces your app's bytecode memory footprint by shrinking classes, methods, and fields into shorter names, and stripping out unused code and resources. Use R8 in full mode along with the new R8 configuration analyzer to make sure your app is getting the most from R8.

The R8 Configuration Analyzer

LeakCanary in Android Studio Panda: The profiler now features native LeakCanary integration as a dedicated task, fully integrated with your IDE and source code.
ApplicationExitInfo: If your app is terminated by these limits, getDescription() from ApplicationExitInfo will return "MemoryLimiter:AnonSwap".
On-Device Anomaly Detection: Part of ProfilingManager, you can leverage trigger-based profiling using TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY to automatically capture heap dumps when the memory limit is reached.

val profilingManager = applicationContext
   .getSystemService(ProfilingManager::class.java)

val triggers = ArrayList().apply {
  add(ProfilingTrigger.Builder(
    ProfilingTrigger.TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY).build())
}
profilingManager.addProfilingTriggers(triggers)

And, we're working to surface more in-field memory metrics to you within Google Play Console.

Generational garbage collection

Android 17 introduces more frequent, less resource-intensive young-generation collections to ART's Concurrent Mark-Compact garbage collector (GC). By separating short-lived objects from stable, long-lived ones, the system runs frequent, lightweight "young-generation" sweeps rather than expensive full-heap scans, drastically reducing CPU usage, power drain, and UI stutter. Our testing has shown significant improvements in GC interference with application threads and a reduction in the maximum memory resident set size (RSS). ART improvements are also available to over a billion devices running Android 12 (API level 31) and higher through Google Play System updates.

Lock-Free MessageQueue

For apps targeting SDK 37 or higher, the core android.os.MessageQueue now implements a lock-free architecture, significantly reducing missed frames, improving app startup time, and radically improving the performance of busy queues in multithreaded scenarios. Note: This can break apps that use reflection on private MessageQueue fields and methods. The peekWhen and poll APIs have been added to TestLooperManager for instrumentation testing without relying on MessageQueue internals.

Static final fields now truly final

Starting from Android 17, apps targeting SDK 37 or higher won’t be able to modify “static final” fields, allowing the runtime to apply performance optimizations more aggressively. An attempt to do so via reflection (or deep reflection) will lead to an IllegalAccessException being thrown. Modifying them via JNI’s SetStaticField methods family will immediately crash the application.

Custom notification view restrictions

To reduce memory usage we are further restricting the size of custom notification views. This update closes a loophole that allows apps to bypass existing limits using URIs. This behavior is gated by the target SDK version and takes effect for apps targeting API 37 and higher.

Privacy & Security

Maintaining user trust is at the heart of the Android ecosystem. Android 17 introduces robust features that protect sensitive data while simplifying user experiences.

Privacy-preserving choices

Historically, apps required broad, permanent permissions to access information like contacts, precise location and media files. Android 17 continues the shift toward privacy-preserving choices that grant temporary, session-based access only to the data the user explicitly selects:

System-Level Contact Picker: Utilizing ACTION_PICK_CONTACTS, apps can request temporary access only to specific fields (e.g., email or phone number) chosen by the user, eliminating the need for the broad READ_CONTACTS permission. It also fully supports work/personal profile separation.
Customizable Photo Picker aspect ratio: UsingPhotoPickerUiCustomizationParams, you can customize the system photo picker to show thumbnails in portrait mode. This is perfect for apps that always display photos and videos in portrait such as video based social media apps.
System-rendered Location Button: A new system-rendered location button that you can embed in your app grants precise location access for the current session only.
EyeDropper API: A new system-level API, ACTION_OPEN_EYE_DROPPER, allows your app to create a system-powered eyedropper enabling the user to select color from any pixel on the display. This provides a secure, privacy-preserving color-picking experience that eliminates the need for broad, sensitive screen capture or media projection permissions.

val eyeDropperLauncher = registerForActivityResult(ActivityResultContracts.StartActivityForResult()) { result ->
   if (result.resultCode == Activity.RESULT_OK) {
       val color = result.data?.getIntExtra(Intent.EXTRA_COLOR, Color.BLACK)
       // Use the picked color in your app
   }
}
fun launchColorPicker() {
   val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_OPEN_EYE_DROPPER)
   eyeDropperLauncher.launch(intent)
}

Picking a color from anywhere on the screen with the system EyeDropper

Local network access

Apps targeting Android 17 now either require the ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORK runtime permission or the use of system-mediated, privacy-preserving device pickers for local network communication, such as talking to smart home devices or casting receivers. Because ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORK falls under the existing NEARBY_DEVICES permission group, users who have already granted other NEARBY_DEVICES permissions will not be prompted again.

SMS OTP protection

Android 17 expands SMS one-time-password (OTP) protection by delaying access to SMS messages for three hours:

WebOTP Format: Delayed for all apps that are not the intended recipient (domain mismatch).
Standard SMS OTP: Delayed for all apps targeting SDK 37+.
Exemptions: Default SMS, assistant, and connected companion apps are exempt. Apps are strongly encouraged to migrate to the SMS Retriever or SMS User Consent APIs.

Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)

Android 17 is ready for the next generation of cryptographic security:

Keystore Integration: Supported devices can generate ML-DSA (Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm) keys in secure hardware to produce quantum-safe signatures, exposed via standard JCA APIs.
Hybrid APK Signing: Introducing the v3.2 APK Signature Scheme, which combines classical signatures with ML-DSA signatures to secure app delivery.

Safer native dynamic code loading

If your app targets SDK 37 or higher, the Safer Dynamic Code Loading (DCL) protection introduced in Android 14 for DEX and JAR files now extends to native libraries. All native files loaded using System.load must be marked as read-only. Otherwise, the system throws UnsatisfiedLinkError

Smarter password protection for physical inputs

With Android 17, we're making it safer to enter passwords, PINs, and other secrets when using a physical keyboard by no longer showing the last typed character by default.

Users can still easily customize these display settings to match their preferences (availability may vary by device manufacturer).

These enhanced privacy protections are automatically supported byAndroid's built-in SDK components and will be supported in Compose 1.12 for SecureTextFields.

Smarter password protection for physical inputs

Media and camera features that empower creators and delight users

Android 17 introduces new creator features that give access to pro-quality cameras and media, all while improving the experience for consumers.

Eclipsa Video: HDR video standard built upon the SMPTE ST 2094-50 specification that introduces new metadata to help devices adapt content for their display headroom and ambient light conditions, as well as improve the simultaneous display of standard and HDR content.
RAW14 image format: New support for the RAW14 image format provides a way for your professional camera app to capture the highest level of detail and color depth from compatible camera sensors.
Vendor-defined camera extensions: Vendor-defined extensions enable hardware partners to define and implement custom camera extension modes, providing access to the best and latest camera features.
Extended HE-AAC software encoder: A new system-provided Extended HE-AAC software encoder, supports both low and high bitrates using unified speech and audio coding, providing significantly better audio quality for voice messages in low-bandwidth conditions, including support for loudness metadata.
Versatile Video Coding (H.266): Enables OEMs to add codec support by defining the video/vvc MIME type in MediaFormat, adding new VVC profiles in MediaCodecInfo, and integrating support into MediaExtractor.
Camera device type: New APIs that query the underlying device type to identify if a camera is built-in hardware, an external USB webcam, or a virtual camera.
Constant Quality for Video Recording: SetVideoEncodingQuality in MediaRecorder configures a constant quality (CQ) mode for video encoders to ensure uniform visual fidelity across the entire video.

Better support for hearing aids

Bluetooth LE Audio hearing aid support: Android now includes a specific device category for Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Audio hearing aids with the new AudioDeviceInfo.TYPE_BLE_HEARING_AID constant, so your app can distinguish hearing aids from regular headsets to provide a tailored experience for users with assistive listening devices.
Granular audio routing for hearing aids: Android 17 allows users to independently manage where specific system sounds are played. They can choose to route notifications, ringtones, and alarms to connected hearing aids or the device's built-in speaker, helping to avoid unwanted in-ear interruptions while maintaining a Bluetooth connection for hearing aid management apps.

CameraX and Media3

CameraX and Media3 have been updated for Android 17. They are there to do the heavy lifting, smoothing the rough edges of media development and simplifying building reliable camera capture, smooth media playback, and creative and complex editing experiences.

We've released an agent skill that can migrate legacy Android camera implementations (Camera1 or raw Camera2 APIs) to CameraX.

Note: You'll need to update your CameraX version to either 1.5.2 or 1.6.0+ to avoid a crash related to an added dynamic range mode on Android 17 devices.

Get your apps, libraries, tools, and game engines ready!

If you develop an Android SDK, library, tool, or game engine, it's critical to prepare any necessary updates now to prevent your downstream app and game developers from being blocked by compatibility issues and allow them to target the latest SDK features. Please let your downstream developers know if updates are needed to fully support Android 17.

Testing involves installing your production app or a test app making use of your library or engine using Google Play or other means onto a device or emulator running Android 17 Beta 4. Work through all your app's flows and look for functional or UI issues. Each release of Android contains platform changes that improve privacy, security, and overall user experience; review the app impacting behavior changes for apps running on and targeting Android 17 to focus your testing, including the following:

Resizability on large screens: Once you target Android 17 (SDK 37), you can no longer opt out of maintaining orientation, resizability and aspect ratio constraints on large screens.
Dynamic code loading: If your app targets SDK 37 or higher, the Safer Dynamic Code Loading (DCL) protection introduced in Android 14 for DEX and JAR files now extends to native libraries. All native files loaded using System.load() must be marked as read-only. Otherwise, the system throws UnsatisfiedLinkError.
Enable CT by default: Certificate transparency (CT) is enabled by default. (On Android 16, CT is available but apps had to opt in.)
Local network protections: Apps targeting SDK 37 or higher have local network access blocked by default. Switch to using privacy preserving pickers if possible, and use the new ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORKpermission for broad, persistent access.
Background audio hardening: Starting in Android 17, the audio framework enforces restrictions on background audio interactions including audio playback, audio focus requests, and volume change APIs. Based on your feedback, we’ve made some changes since beta 2, including targetSDK gating while-in-use FGS enforcement and exempting alarm audio. Full details available in the updated guidance.
NPU access declaration: Apps targeting Android 17 that need to directly access the NPU must declare FEATURE_NEURAL_PROCESSING_UNIT in their manifest to avoid being blocked from accessing the NPU. This includes apps that use the LiteRT NPU delegate, vendor-specific SDKs, as well as the deprecated NNAPI.

Get started with Android 17

Your Pixel device should get Android 17 shortly if you haven't already been on the Android Beta. If you don’t have a Pixel device, you can use the 64-bit system images with the Android Emulator in Android Studio. If you are currently on Android 17 Beta 4.1 and have not yet taken an Android 17 QPR1 beta, you can opt out of the program and you will then be offered the release version of Android 17 over the air.

Getting the Android 17 beta on partner devices

Android 17 is available in beta on handset, tablet, and foldable form factors from partners including Honor, iQOO, Lenovo, OnePlus, OPPO, Realme, Sharp, vivo, and Xiaomi.

For the best development experience with Android 17, we recommend that you use the latest Canary build of Android Studio Quail. Once you’re set up, here are some of the things you should do:

Test your current app for compatibility, learn whether your app is affected by changes in Android 17, and install your app onto a device or Android Emulator running Android 17 and extensively test it.

Thank you again to everyone who participated in our Android developer preview and beta program. We're looking forward to seeing how your apps take advantage of the updates in Android 17, and have plans to bring you updates in a fast-paced release cadence going forward.

For complete information on Android 17 please visit the Android 17 developer site.

Design System Governance Committee: 24 February 2026

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

Author: Mozilla Thunderbird - Bewertung: 6x - Views:160

In the February meeting, the Bolt Design System Committee aligns on initial setup and ownership for the Bolt Design System repo, began defining cross-platform icon naming conventions, plus works towards component exposure in the documentation site.

Have any questions or want to join the conversation? Come find us in our Matrix room (https://matrix.to/#/#bolt-design-system:mozilla.org). New to Matrix? Find a Quick Start guide here: https://matrixdocs.github.io/docs/getting-started/quick-start

Swagger UI 1.0.3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:04:41 +0200

Topic: Swagger UI 1.0.3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Risk: Low Text:/* * Author : Byte Reaper * Telegram : @ByteReaper0 * CVE : CVE-2025-8191 * Title : Swagger UI 1.0.3...

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

Download the PDF version of this report:

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

Mitigations

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

Vulnerable Third-Party Vendors

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

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

Vulnerable Downstream Customers and End Users

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

SimpleHelp Endpoints

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Resources

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

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



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

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

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






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

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

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

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


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

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


Table 1. Reconnaissance


Technique Title
ID
Use




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


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




Table 2. Resource Development


Technique Title
ID
Use




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




Table 3. Initial Access


Technique Title
ID
Use




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




Table 4. Persistence


Technique Title
ID
Use




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




Table 5. Credential Access


Technique Title
ID
Use




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




Table 6. Lateral Movement


Technique Title
ID
Use




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


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


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




Table 7. Execution


Technique Title
ID
Use




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




Table 8. Inhibit Response Function


Technique Title
ID
Use




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


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


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




Table 9. Impair Process Control


Technique Title
ID
Use




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


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




Table 10. Impact


Technique Title
ID
Use




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


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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.


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


Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

GRU military unit 74455

Sandworm Team
Voodoo Bear
Seashell Blizzard
APT44


Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR)

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


NoName057(16)

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


Z-Pentest

Z-Pentest Beograd
Z-Pentest Alliance
Z-Alliance





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



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


Original Publication
April 7, 2026


Last Update 
July 22, 2026


Executive Summary
The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.


Last Update Description
This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.


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


Key Actions


Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices.
Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action.
Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers.
For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.




Indicators of Compromise

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

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

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

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




Intended Audience

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




Introduction
Note: This advisory was originally published on April 7, 2026, to provide tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices by Iranian-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The authoring agencies updated this advisory on July 22, 2026, to add new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules leveraged within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands the manufacturer scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practice resources for secure deployment.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Cyber Command – Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter referred to as the “authoring agencies”) are urgently warning U.S. organizations of ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected OT devices—including PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs—across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. As a result of this activity, organizations from multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors experienced disruptions through malicious interactions with PLC project files¹ and the manipulation of data displayed on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays. In a few cases, this activity caused operational disruption and financial loss.
The authoring agencies assess a group of Iranian-affiliated APT actors is conducting this activity to cause disruptive effects within the United States. The group targeted devices spanning multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including Government Services and Facilities (to include local municipalities), Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by CyberAv3ngers (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).
Due to the widespread use of these PLCs, and the potential for additional targeting of other branded OT devices across critical infrastructure, the authoring agencies recommend U.S. organizations urgently review the TTPs and IOCs in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.
If owners and operators discover an affected internet-accessible device in their environment, additional technical measures may be necessary to evaluate the risk of compromise. Please engage your cyber incident response plans and contact the authoring agencies and applicable vendors through existing support channels available to customers and integrators (see Contact Information) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.
For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Iran Threat Overview and Advisories webpage and the FBI’s Iran Threat and Iran Cyber Threat Overview webpages.
Download the PDF version of this report:






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

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

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

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






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







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

Background Information
Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers
During a similar campaign beginning in November 2023, the IRGC CEC-affiliated cyber threat actors known as "CyberAv3ngers” targeted U.S.-based PLCs and HMIs, causing disruptive effects. Private industry and open sources also refer to this group as Hydro Kitten, Storm-0784, APT Iran, Bauxite, Mr. Soul, Soldiers of Solomon, UNC5691, and the Shahid Kaveh Group. These attacks compromised at least 75 devices, targeting U.S.-based Unitronics PLC devices with an HMI used across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, including the WWS. APT actors developed and deployed custom ladder logic code to these devices, replacing the valid ladder logic with malicious code that continues to be observed to date.
For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities.
Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers
The FBI observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors targeting internet-exposed PLCs with the intent to cause disruptions—including maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays—to U.S. critical infrastructure organizations. Iranian-affiliated APT targeting campaigns against U.S. critical infrastructure have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran, and the United States and Israel.
(New, July 22, 2026) At one U.S. victim, the FBI observed the APT actors download a malicious project file to a targeted PLC using configuration software. Analysis indicated the project file retained ladder logic for downstream function but added logic that overrode specific instruction sets responsible for maintaining safe operating parameters in the victim’s environment.
Since at least March 2026, the authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT group disrupted the function of PLCs. Organizations across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including Government Services and Facilities, WWS, and Energy Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.
Technical Details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.
Initial Access
(Updated, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using several foreign-based IP addresses to access internet-facing PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs [T0883]. The actors used leased, third-party hosted infrastructure and manufacturers’ PLC programming software to connect to misconfigured victim PLCs. Inbound malicious traffic has been observed targeting PLC devices on the following ports: 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, as well as targeting modems on port 22. Targeted devices include:

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

Command and Control
(Updated, July 22, 2026) The targeting of ports [T0885] associated with other OT vendors’ protocols suggests these actors are opportunistically targeting devices manufactured by companies other than Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, including Schneider Electric and Siemens. In one reported instance, the actors utilized Dropbear Secure Shell (SSH) software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22 [T1219].
Exfiltration
(New, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using configuration software—such as Rockwell Automation’s Studio 5000 Logix Designer, Schneider Electric’s EcoStruxure Control Expert, and Siemens’ Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal—on leased, third-party hosted infrastructure to exfiltrate device project files from PLC devices to threat-actor-controlled infrastructure [T1041].
Impact
(Updated, July 22, 2026) After the actors extracted device project files, the FBI and CISA identified the modification and deletion of project file logic, to include Add-On Instructions (AOIs) and data manipulation on HMI and SCADA displays [T1565]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.
Note: An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.
Indicators of Compromise
See Table 1 and Table 2 for recent IP addresses used by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors to communicate with PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, and Siemens in the United States.
Disclaimer: The FBI observed the threat actors using the IP addresses listed below in the specified time frames. This data is being provided for customers to query against logs for indications of historical targeting by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors. The authoring agencies recommend organizations investigate or vet these IP addresses prior to taking action, such as blocking.

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


Indicator
Beginning of Actor Association
End of Actor Association




185.82.73[.]175
September 2025
February 2026


141.11.164[.]153
January 2026
June 2026


175.110.121[.]42
February 2026
March 2026


175.110.121[.]39
February 2026
March 2026


175.110.121[.]41
February 2026
March 2026


175.110.121[.]107
February 2026
February 2026


192.142.54[.]79
May 2026
June 2026


84.200.205[.]165
May 2026
June 2026


185.225.17[.]225
June 2026
July 2026


79.133.46[.]209
July 2026
July 2026


88.80.150[.]199
July 2026
July 2026


88.80.150[.]200
July 2026
July 2026


88.80.150[.]202
July 2026
July 2026




Table 2. Indicators of Compromise 


Indicator
Beginning of Actor Association
End of Actor Association




185.82.73[.]162
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]164
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]165
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]167
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]168
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]170
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]171
January 2025
March 2026


135.136.1[.]133
March 2026
March 2026



MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques
See Table 3 to Table 6 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend organizations review historical TTPs for similar Iranian-affiliated cyber actor activity in IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 3. Initial Access


Technique Title
ID
Use




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



 

Table 4. Command and Control


Technique Title
ID
Use




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


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




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


Technique Title
ID
Use




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




Table 6. Impact


Technique Title
ID
Use




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



Mitigations
The authoring agencies recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture on the basis of the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats and TTPs. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.
Network Defenders
The cyber threat actors accessed PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs to cause disruptions to victim systems. To safeguard against this threat and threats to other types of PLCs, the authoring agencies urge organizations to consider the following mitigations.
(Updated, July 22, 2026) In addition to contacting the authoring agencies, organizations and integrators operating PLCs from the manufacturers mentioned in this advisory should review the previously issued guidance to strengthen the security of their OT deployments:

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


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


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


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


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


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



Immediate steps to prevent the attack:

Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet [CPG 3.S]. Follow the joint guidance Secure connectivity principles for OT to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.


Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.
Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.
(New, July 22, 2026) To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).


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


Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.


For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s²System Security Design Guidelines for manufacturer’s instructions.)


(New, July 22, 2026) Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.


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

Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:

(New, July 22, 2026) Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes. Use vendor-provided integrity checking tools and visually compare the running program to known good logic. Ensure reusable logic and input/output configurations are valid. For Rockwell Automation PLCs listed in the Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.


If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.
Review logs and configurations on all connected devices, including modems, HMIs, and workstations, to assess potential lateral movement by threat actors. If it appears the actors connected to additional devices, reimage these devices to remove any potential malicious changes or access tools.


(New, July 22, 2026) Ensure device passwords are changed from their default and are configured to use complex, unique combinations of letters, numbers, and symbols that are not easily guessable. Implementing robust password practices remains a critical security measure that can help prevent unauthorized access and strengthen the overall security posture of OT devices.
(New, July 22, 2026) Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.
Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.
Implement multifactor authentication (MFA) [CPG 3.F] for access to the OT network from an external network.
If remote access is required, implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access.


A VPN or gateway device can enable MFA for remote access even if the PLC does not support MFA. Implement security rules on these higher-level network security mechanisms to prevent the type of repeated and sustained login attempts seen during a brute force attack. When possible, implement a device control list for workstations sending messages or connecting to OT components.
Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.


Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer. Use established downtime windows to install patches. Known Exploited Vulnerabilities may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.
Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.
Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and passwords, as well as unused or needed services such as Teletype Network (Telnet), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Virtual Network Computing (VNC), and web services.
Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.
Monitor the content of network traffic for the following:


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


(New, July 22, 2026) Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. Owners and operators should communicate directly with service providers to address risks, especially when remote monitoring or maintenance is involved. Some service providers may rely on internet connectivity essential to monitor and maintain OT/ICS operations but may not be fully aware of active threats.

In addition, the authoring agencies recommend network defenders apply the following mitigations to limit potential adversarial use of common system and network discovery techniques, as well as reduce the impact and risk of compromise by cyber threat actors:

Reduce risk exposure. CISA offers a range of services at no cost, including scanning and testing, to help organizations reduce exposure to threats via mitigating attack vectors. CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services can help provide additional review of organizations’ internet-accessible assets. 

Device Manufacturers
Note: The following guidance is general in nature and not specific to any OT vendor. Some of the features, settings, and practices may already be offered by certain vendors. The inclusion of this guidance should not be interpreted as an assertion that vendors referenced do not offer such security features. Also, this advisory is not highlighting a new vulnerability in the identified products, but instead discusses opportunistic targeting. Device manufacturers can make opportunistic attacks more difficult at scale by encouraging more secure behavior by default and in operations, as discussed below. 
Although critical infrastructure organizations using PLC devices can take steps to mitigate the risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of the device manufacturer to build products secured by design and default. The authoring agencies urge device manufacturers to take ownership of their customers’ security outcomes by following the principles in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products, primarily:

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

By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.
For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations. For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage and joint guide.
Validate Security Controls
In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring agencies recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.
To get started:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Disclaimer
The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and the authoring agencies do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA and the authoring agencies.
Version History
April 7, 2026: Initial version.
July 22, 2026: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.
Notes
¹Project file refers to the software file that contains ladder logic and configuration settings. On Rockwell Automation devices, it is referred to as an .ACD file.
²See CompactLogix 5370 Controllers (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.


CVE-2022-40470 | Phpgurukul Blood Donor Management System 1.0 Add Blood Group Name cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43748)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:42:17 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Phpgurukul Blood Donor Management System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the component Add Blood Group Name Handler. Such manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2022-40470. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.


CVE-2022-40490 | Tiny File Manager up to 2.4.7 cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43765)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:42:09 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Tiny File Manager up to 2.4.7. This issue affects some unknown processing. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40490. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


CVE-2022-40603 | ZyXEL ZyWALL/USG CGI Program cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43878)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:41:54 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in ZyXEL ZyWALL and USG. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component CGI Program. Performing a manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2022-40603. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2022-40631 | Siemens SCALANCE X200-4P IRT cross site scripting (ssa-501891 / EUVD-2022-43905)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:41:50 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Siemens SCALANCE X200-4P IRT, SCALANCE X201-3P IRT, SCALANCE X201-3P IRT PRO, SCALANCE X202-2IRT, SCALANCE X202-2P IRT, SCALANCE X202-2P IRT PRO, SCALANCE X204-2, SCALANCE X204-2FM, SCALANCE X204-2LD, SCALANCE X204-2LD TS, SCALANCE X204-2TS, SCALANCE X204IRT, SCALANCE X204IRT PRO, SCALANCE X206-1, SCALANCE X206-1LD, SCALANCE X208, SCALANCE X208PRO, SCALANCE X212-2, SCALANCE X212-2LD, SCALANCE X216, SCALANCE X224, SCALANCE XF201-3P IRT, SCALANCE XF202-2P IRT, SCALANCE XF204, SCALANCE XF204-2, SCALANCE XF204-2BA IRT, SCALANCE XF204IRT, SCALANCE XF206-1 and SCALANCE XF208. This issue affects some unknown processing. Such manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2022-40631. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

Upgrading the affected component is advised.


CVE-2022-40690 | BookStack up to 22.02.3 cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43961)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:41:46 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in BookStack 0.18.4/0.29.2/0.30.4/0.30.5/22.02.3. Impacted is an unknown function. This manipulation causes cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2022-40690. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2022-40711 | PrimeKey EJBCA 7.9.0.2 End Entity Section cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43981)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:41:33 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in PrimeKey EJBCA 7.9.0.2. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component End Entity Section. This manipulation causes cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2022-40711. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


CVE-2022-40704 | phoronix-test-suite phoromatic_r_add_test_details.php cross site scripting (Issue 650 / EUVD-2022-43975)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:41:29 +0200
A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in phoronix-test-suite. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file phoromatic_r_add_test_details.php. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2022-40704. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.


CVE-2026-34231 | mixxorz slippers up to 0.6.2 on Django cross site scripting
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:39:44 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in mixxorz slippers up to 0.6.2 on Django. This affects an unknown function. This manipulation causes cross site scripting.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-34231. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


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

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

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




You can read more about the feature here


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

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

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




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

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




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

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

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

 Anthony Mclamb: Disable the legacy Edge migrator
 Amin Amir

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


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

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


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

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


Keji Bakare:

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


ROSHAAN:

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


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

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


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


Oluwatobi:

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


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

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

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

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



WebExtensions Framework

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

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


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

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



WebExtension APIs

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

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



DevTools

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




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

Fluent

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


Migration Improvements

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

New Tab Page

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

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


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

Search and Urlbar

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

Smart Window

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

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


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

Storybook/Reusable Components/Acorn Design System

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

UX Fundamentals

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

Settings Redesign

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




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



Firefox Nightly: Giving You More Control – These Weeks in Firefox: Issue 204
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0200
Highlights

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  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






Firefox Nightly: Eyedropper Quick Action, geckodriver 0.37, and Tighter File Permissions – These Weeks in Firefox: Issue 205
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:28 +0200
Highlights

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


7 CRM trends for 2026: AI brings decisive action to customer workflows
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:53:15 +0200

		
					  
						




Agentic AI has advanced from the promises-and-pilots phase of 2025 to reality and rollouts in 2026. In the process, agentic AI is transforming virtually every aspect of customer relationship management (CRM), the platform that manages sales, marketing, and customer service.



“Last year, everybody was dipping their toes into the water,” says Keith Kirkpatrick, research director at The Futurum Group. This year, agentic AI has built momentum from the boardroom down, with companies recognizing that having an AI strategy is imperative. “They feel like if they don’t embrace it now, their competitors will.”



Harry Datwani, a principal at Deloitte Digital, adds that enterprise CRM customers have transitioned from “proof of concept” to “scale and execution.”



“Across sales, service, marketing, even in the commerce space, enterprises are really using AI and agentic,” he says.



“CRM in 2026 is undergoing a structural shift, not just an incremental evolution,” says Forrester analyst Kate Leggett, noting that AI is becoming a core part of CRM infrastructure, not just a feature or an add-on. According to Forrester data, around 70% of companies are already using AI in their CRM systems, she says.



Here are the hot AI-driven trends in CRM this year.



CRM becomes an action hero



CRM platforms have traditionally served as passive, static systems of record. Now, agentic AI is transforming CRM into a powerful, real-time solution that can act autonomously.



“Organizations that rethink CRM as a real-time, AI-powered system of action — and embrace agentic AI to handle complex, unpredictable work — are better positioned to deliver exceptional customer experiences,” says IDC analyst Neil Ward-Dutton. “This approach not only enhances satisfaction and loyalty but also drives operational efficiency and business agility.”



Forrester’s Leggett says that AI-powered CRM platforms have advanced from simple data capture to real-time decision-making and execution. Standard capabilities include next-best action recommendations, call summaries, automated updates, generated emails, knowledge creation, predictive forecasting, and deal scoring.



She adds that AI agents can now execute workflows, such as routing cases, sending follow-ups, and updating records (with human oversight). They can also handle end-to-end service and sales tasks autonomously, including case resolutions and sales development activities.



Agentic drives workforce changes



AI use in CRM systems is also impacting workforce strategies.



“We used to hire for deep expertise,” says Constellation Research analyst Liz Miller. “AI has commoditized expertise because I can take all that data from my CRM and train my AI models to go deep, to know everything about any product I’ve ever sold, from what has worked, what hasn’t, every price, every sale.”



Now, instead of hiring candidates with deep expertise, organizations are looking for candidates who can go wide. “I can train a model to have deep expertise. What I can’t train for is experience, because experience is what happens when a person has gone broad across a lot of different scenarios and faced complexity across that broad scenario,” says Miller.



For example, AI systems can automate many aspects of marketing, Miller notes, but there’s no substitute for creativity: people who can interrogate the data and come up with innovative marketing campaigns that connect with customers.



Terence Chesire, group vice president of ServiceNow CRM and industry workflows, says that organizations are using agentic AI to free up team members from repetitive, lower-value activities. Those employees have now moved to higher-level roles “where they’re working on transformational deals rather than just building a spreadsheet.”



“That’s what we’re seeing as super-exciting as organizations not just free up people, but the speed and effort reduction and the friction reduction in what they can do,” he adds.



Data layer takes center stage



AI’s promise to deliver actionable customer and marketing intelligence has placed even greater emphasis on the importance on sound data management practices for CRM.



“The light bulb has flashed on very brightly for our clients,” says Deloitte’s Datwani. “Everyone is talking about AI agents, but your ability to really extract value is inextricably linked to the quality of your data and the ability to make that data accessible. What we’re finding is that despite large investments over time our clients still have fragmented data. And so, they are data rich and insight poor.”



The good news, says Datwani, is that AI agents themselves can help clean up and organize data. And vendors such as Snowflake and Databricks, along with the traditional CRM powerhouses, are offering powerful data analytics solutions. “Everyone is battling for that data layer,” Datwani says.



Forrester’s Leggett adds that CRM platforms are converging with customer data platforms (CDPs), real-time event streams, and external data sources to create connected customer data networks. These real-time, connected data models can help organizations deliver hyper-personalization at scale.



Agentic ushers in pricing complexity



The shift from license- or subscription-based pricing to an outcome or consumption pricing model has the potential to help CIOs tie their CRM costs to specific business metrics, such as the number of customer service calls resolved per hour. But it has also introduced a new level of complexity when it comes to budgeting for CRM costs.



For example, Chesire says ServiceNow’s CRM pricing plan starts with a baseline subscription model, and on top of that, customers get a certain number of AI tokens per user and can buy additional tokens as AI usage ramps up.



Meanwhile, Salesforce has rolled out pay-per-resolution pricing with its recently unveiled AI Help Agent and last month acquired usage-based billing specialist m3ter. Oracle is also piloting outcome-based AI pricing.



All these approaches undercut the predictability of the subscription model, which will complicate CIOs’ cost calculus, Deloitte’s Datwani says. “Now, as you start to think about consumption and tokens, costs might look different. As folks are opening up the architecture with things like headless CRM, what will the cost model look like for API calls or MCP server calls? So, there’s many more variables,” he adds.



The rise of multi-agent orchestration



To act autonomously, agents need to access multiple data sets and software platforms seamlessly. As a result, the proliferation of agents, some embedded within specific vendor platforms and some created in-house, is going to require an orchestration layer, Futurum’s Kirkpatrick says.



He points out that organizations need to monitor and manage agents, enforcing the same type of policy-based access control that exists for people. Organizations also need to set limits on what domains a specific agent can get into, what types of data they can access, what lines can’t they cross.



Kirkpatrick predicts that a new class of orchestration tools will emerge, although it’s not clear whether that orchestration layer will be provided by the leading CRM vendors, hyperscalers, or third parties.



Datwani agrees. “The orchestration layer is an interesting area, where the traditional vendors are in on it, the hyperscalers are also offering it, and there are third parties. It’s my belief that there’s not going to be a clear winner.”



The interface becomes conversational



Enterprise users who have traditionally had to manually wrangle with CRM systems are likely to find the ability to employ voice commands using a natural language interface to be a game changer. For starters, a salesperson can say, “I have a meeting today with Customer X. Help me prepare.” The agent will collect relevant data, ingest it, and provide a summary with recommendations.



ServiceNow’s Chesire says voice-enabled CRM systems have an “almost magical” ability to record, transcribe, and understand the content of a call between a salesperson and a customer or potential customer. The system can then “build a quote” based on that conversation.



On the customer service side of the equation, AI-driven voice technology enables customers to speak to an AI agent, describe the problem using natural language, and get a response. The agent has the capability to, for example, solve a credit card dispute, order a replacement product, send out a service rep, or do whatever is needed to resolve the issue, says Chesire.



Beyond that, agentic technology is capable of understanding the underlying business process flaws that led to the product snafu, and make recommendations for ways to fix whatever led to the issue in the first place, he adds.



Agentic drives business process transformation



With the emergence of outcome-based pricing, organizations are taking a fresh look at how they measure the benefits of CRM systems. That conversation is leading to an even more important analysis of underlying business processes. Or, as Constellation’s Miller says, “The old adage of applying new technology to old processes only gets you more expensive old processes.”



“When we survey customers, we hear time and time again that the reason why they want to apply AI into their organizations is to foster exponential opportunity and exponential growth,” she says. “How do we get there with CRM has started to become the new conversation.”



According to Miller, AI systems breach the walls of siloed data and can take a fresh look at legacy workflows. They also don’t get sucked into turf wars between marketing and sales teams. As a result, they often recommend new actions that can lead to better processes. “I think it’s starting to happen. You’re starting to see applications where AI is beginning to accelerate decision-making and decision velocity,” she says.



“The next phase of maturity is going to be, how do we start to spread AI across our platforms so that we are seeing that holistic end-to-end relationship that we have always wanted to optimize. How do we thread that across platforms and across solutions. We’re starting to see organizations on the leading edge really start to pull those strategies together,” says Miller.



3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:50 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.



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



The problem is rarely a lack of effort.



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



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



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



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



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



This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.



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



Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.



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




As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.



More products create more complexity.



More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.



More alerts require more analysts.



More analysts produce more reports.



More reports continue to build up executive confidence.



Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.




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



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



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



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



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



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



That imbalance should worry every CEO.



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



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




Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities



Software supply chain complexity.



Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography




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



Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Leadership will determine who succeeds



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



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



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



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



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



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



These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.



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



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



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



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



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



What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:45 +0200

		
					  
						




What is a business analyst?



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



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



The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that business analysis is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.



Impact of AI on business analyst role



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



AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.



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



Business analyst job description



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



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



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



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



Business analyst skills



The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.



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



According to the IIBA, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:




Oral and written communication skills



Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills



Analytical thinking and problem solving



Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy



Knowledge of business structure



Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis



Processes modeling



Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies




For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click here.



Business analyst salary



The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to data from PayScale. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.



Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:



Skills Salary Boost
ScrumMaster 44%
Microsoft Azure 30%
Supply Chain 27%
Oracle eBusiness Suite 25%
Master Data Management (SAP MDM) 24%
SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD) 24%
Product Support 18%
Microsoft Dynamics GP 18%
SAP Quality Management (SAP QM) 18%
Workday Software 15%
 



For tips on boosting your salary, click here.



Business analyst certifications



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




IIBA Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)



IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)



IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)



IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)



IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)



IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)



PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)



Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)




For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click here.



Business analytics tools and software



BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.



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

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Potentially widespread fallout



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Impossible to predict what will happen



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



CVE-2022-40348 | Intern Record System 1.0 /intern/controller.php name/email cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43639)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 03:55:31 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Intern Record System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /intern/controller.php. The manipulation of the argument name/email results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2022-40348. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2026-15648 | berocket Brands for WooCommerce Plugin up to 3.8.8 on WordPress Shortcode width cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-48508)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 03:55:16 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in berocket Brands for WooCommerce Plugin up to 3.8.8 on WordPress. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component Shortcode Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument width results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-15648. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2026-65904 | cure53 DOMPurify up to 3.4.3 _isNode cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-48273)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 01:53:15 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in cure53 DOMPurify up to 3.4.3. This vulnerability affects the function _isNode. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-65904. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

You should upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-65899 | cure53 DOMPurify up to 3.4.8 clearConfig cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-48268)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 01:53:09 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in cure53 DOMPurify up to 3.4.8. This impacts the function clearConfig. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-65899. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-33276 | Checkmk up to 2.5.0b1 Unified Search cross site scripting
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:54:19 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Checkmk up to 2.5.0b1. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Unified Search. This manipulation causes cross site scripting.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-33276. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-4267 | Query Monitor Plugin prior 3.20.4 on WordPress REQUEST_URI cross site scripting
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:54:18 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Query Monitor Plugin on WordPress. This vulnerability affects unknown code. This manipulation of the argument REQUEST_URI causes cross site scripting.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-4267. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


US Accuses American of Allegedly Wiping His Phone Using a 'Duress' Password During Border Search
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:08:09 +0200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone, according to an indictment and media reports. This is thought to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone for the alleged destruction of data using a so-called "duress" password built into a phone's software. According to The Guardian, which covered the story earlier this week following the court's first hearing on Monday, Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick is fighting the charges. Tunick's attorneys said that it was unlawful for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to seize his phone as he arrived back in the U.S. last year, and that any evidence -- including the alleged wiping of his phone -- should be thrown out.
 
The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick's attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone. The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user's unlock passcode. Tunick's case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter. Bill Budington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Runa Sandvik, a digital security expert who works to protect at-risk people as the founder of security consultancy firm Granitt, told TechCrunch that they had not seen similar cases involving the use of duress passwords.
 
"I have not seen this before, though I've discussed the potential scenario with activists and journalists over the years," said Sandvik. "I think this case serves as a reminder that authorities may argue you knowingly destroyed data, so it's better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders."
 
"With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you're going," said Sandvik.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


CVE-2026-15968 | Progress MOVEit Transfer up to 2025.1.4/2026.0.2 cross site scripting (WID-SEC-2026-2512)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:40:56 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Progress MOVEit Transfer up to 2025.1.4/2026.0.2. This affects an unknown part. Such manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-15968. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.

Upgrading the affected component is advised.


Amazon confirms it’s closing key AI site in San Francisco but says work on its top models continues
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:19:52 +0200

Amazon is closing its San Francisco AGI site as part of the layoffs it made this week in its artificial general intelligence organization, but said its frontier model research lab will continue. Read More


CVE-2026-21618 | hexpm hex.pm shared_authorization_view.ex cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-3322)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:14:41 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in hexpm hex.pm. This vulnerability affects unknown code in the library lib/hexpm_web/views/shared_authorization_view.ex. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-21618. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

Applying a patch is advised to resolve this issue.


CVE-2022-40184 | Bosch VIDEOJET multi 4000 Configuration cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43487)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:01 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in Bosch VIDEOJET multi 4000. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Configuration Handler. This manipulation causes cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2022-40184. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.


CVE-2022-40183 | Bosch VIDEOJET multi 4000 URL cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43486)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:00 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Bosch VIDEOJET multi 4000. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component URL Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2022-40183. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-59214 | open-webui Open WebUI up to 0.9.x JS Module pyodide.http cross-domain policy (EUVD-2026-42616)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:09:43 +0200
A vulnerability categorized as problematic has been discovered in open-webui Open WebUI up to 0.9.x. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file pyodide.http of the component JS Module. Executing a manipulation can lead to permissive cross-domain policy with untrusted domains.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-59214. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-15966 | Progress MOVEit Transfer up to 2025.1.4/2026.0.2 cross-domain policy (WID-SEC-2026-2512)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:19:58 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in Progress MOVEit Transfer up to 2025.1.4/2026.0.2. Affected is an unknown function. The manipulation leads to permissive cross-domain policy with untrusted domains.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-15966. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


Call of Duty Mobile scam uses fake free points to steal player accounts
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:46:52 +0200
A phishing site posing as a free Call of Duty Points giveaway is stealing Activision logins and two-factor authentication codes. This article has been indexed from Malwarebytes Read the original article: Call of Duty Mobile scam uses fake free points…
Read more →
The post Call of Duty Mobile scam uses fake free points to steal player accounts appeared first on IT Security News.


Call of Duty Mobile scam uses fake free points to steal player accounts
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:34:01 +0200
A phishing site posing as a free Call of Duty Points giveaway is stealing Activision logins and two-factor authentication codes.


Default Azure Automation Setting Enables Cross-Tenant Identity Takeover
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:05:03 +0200
Microsoft addressed a public-by-default configuration and chain of code flaws in Azure Automation which could have let attackers seize another tenant's identity and access other tenants' data, credentials, and cloud workloads.


Vatican's Official Prayer App Leaks 700K+ Global Users' PII
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:11:02 +0200
A porous API endpoint exposes, names, email addresses, location, and site status, all of which can be easily gleaned by anyone with a browser.


CVE-2026-5671 | Cyber-III Student-Management-System up to 1a938fa61e9f735078e9b291d2e6215b4942af3f Class Schedule Deletion Endpoint delete_batch.php batch cross site scripting (Issue 242)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:12:05 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Cyber-III Student-Management-System up to 1a938fa61e9f735078e9b291d2e6215b4942af3f and classified as problematic. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /admin/class%20schedule/delete_batch.php of the component Class Schedule Deletion Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument batch can lead to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-5671. The attack can be launched remotely. Moreover, an exploit is present.

This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable.

The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.


[NEU] [mittel] Progress Software MOVEit Transfer: Mehrere Schwachstellen
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:25:59 +0200
Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Progress Software MOVEit Transfer ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, erweiterte Berechtigungen zu erlangen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriffe durchzuführen.


Why I changed how I pitch AI: It’s no longer about saving money, but managing tokens and adoption
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:04:13 +0200

		
					  
						




I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.



The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.



AI as a leadership multiplier



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



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



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



Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.



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



The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:




Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.



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



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




PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.



AI as a new operational framework



Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.



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



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



In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.



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



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



The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.



Risks in the AI adoption model



Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).



I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.



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



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



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



As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.



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



NodeBB Patches Eight High-Severity Flaws Enabling XSS, Admin Bypass, and Data Theft
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:39:05 +0200
A newly disclosed eight high-severity vulnerabilities in NodeBB, a popular Node.js-based forum platform, all discovered during a six-hour AI-driven whitebox penetration test. The flaws affected default NodeBB instances prior to version 4.14.0 and included cross-site scripting (XSS), authentication bypasses, and unauthorized data exposure. NodeBB’s maintainers responded quickly, rolling out fixes in early July 2026. NodeBB […]
The post NodeBB Patches Eight High-Severity Flaws Enabling XSS, Admin Bypass, and Data Theft appeared first on Cyber Security News.


What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:04 +0200

		
					  
						




What is a business analyst?



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



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



The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that business analysis is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.



Impact of AI on business analyst role



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



AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.



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



Business analyst job description



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



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



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



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



Business analyst skills



The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.



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



According to the IIBA, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:




Oral and written communication skills



Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills



Analytical thinking and problem solving



Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy



Knowledge of business structure



Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis



Processes modeling



Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies




For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click here.



Business analyst salary



The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to data from PayScale. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.



Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:



Skills Salary Boost
ScrumMaster 44%
Microsoft Azure 30%
Supply Chain 27%
Oracle eBusiness Suite 25%
Master Data Management (SAP MDM) 24%
SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD) 24%
Product Support 18%
Microsoft Dynamics GP 18%
SAP Quality Management (SAP QM) 18%
Workday Software 15%
 



For tips on boosting your salary, click here.



Business analyst certifications



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




IIBA Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)



IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)



IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)



IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)



IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)



IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)



PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)



Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)




For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click here.



Business analytics tools and software



BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.



ISC2 seeks input from IT pros for AI security certification
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:03 +0200

		
					  
						




ISC2 has begun developing a vendor-neutral AI security certification aimed at cybersecurity professionals working to secure AI systems and manage emerging AI risks.



The nonprofit organization, best known for the CISSP certification, says it is seeking volunteers worldwide to help define the knowledge and skills that will shape the new credential. While ISC2 has not finalized the certification domains, the certification is expected to address both technical AI security and governance topics, with a pilot exam planned before the end of 2026.



According to Casey Marks, ISC2 chief operating officer, feedback from cybersecurity practitioners led ISC2 to conclude that AI security had grown beyond expanding AI content within existing certifications.



“AI has reached a tipping point,” Marks says. “AI no longer is just another tool; instead, it has fundamentally changed the cybersecurity practice itself.”



ISC2 already includes AI-related content in certifications including CISSP and CCSP, but Marks says practitioners have identified new responsibilities and risks that extend beyond those programs. “Enterprise security teams are currently grappling with significant knowledge gaps, particularly around securing model architectures against new vulnerabilities like prompt injection, data poisoning, and model inversion,” Marks adds.



Organizations are working to understand emerging governance frameworks, including the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 42001, while adapting traditional application security and security operations workflows to AI systems, he says.



ISC2 has not finalized the certification domains, but Marks says the organization expects the credential to address both technical controls and governance practices for securing AI systems and managing AI risk. The certification will use ISC2’s established certification development process, which relies on cybersecurity practitioners to define job roles, develop exam content, and validate competencies.



Marks says ISC2 will continue to update the certification through ongoing input from cybersecurity professionals, in addition to its regular certification review process.



The organization is also determining which professionals the certification will target. Marks says AI security responsibilities are emerging across security architecture, risk management, security operations, software development security, governance and compliance, communication and network security, and security assessment and testing. ISC2 says the certification will reflect how those roles are evolving.



For organizations that are building AI security programs now, Marks recommends using existing AI training resources, adopting established governance frameworks, creating cross-functional AI security working groups, and participating in the certification development process.



Marks says ISC2 expects AI knowledge to become part of most cybersecurity roles while a more specialized AI security discipline continues to develop. He says organizations will increasingly need professionals with foundational AI security knowledge, as well as specialists in areas such as adversarial machine learning, model architectures, and AI data pipelines.



Looking ahead, Marks says he expects AI security expertise to evolve into both a foundational skill for cybersecurity professionals and a specialized discipline of its own.



“At this time, we are seeing a hybrid evolution occurring in real time: AI security is simultaneously becoming a baseline expectation for all security roles, while also carving out a dedicated, highly specialized discipline,” Marks says.



3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:02 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.



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



The problem is rarely a lack of effort.



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



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



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



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



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



This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.



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



Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.



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




As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.



More products create more complexity.



More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.



More alerts require more analysts.



More analysts produce more reports.



More reports continue to build up executive confidence.



Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.




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



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



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



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



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



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



That imbalance should worry every CEO.



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



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




Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities



Software supply chain complexity.



Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography




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



Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Leadership will determine who succeeds



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



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



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



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



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



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



These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.



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



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



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



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



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



CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:00 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Potentially widespread fallout



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Impossible to predict what will happen



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Sponsor mismatch is the silent killer of enterprise transformation
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:03:44 +0200

		
					  
						




Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.



The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.



The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.



This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.



Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.



When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices



When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.



You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.



None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.



When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.



The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.



Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is



When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?



In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.



This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.



Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.



Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.



Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk



When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.



On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.



The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.



This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.



In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.



The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.



There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:



If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.



Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.



For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.



A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.



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



Google meets the neighbors and gets both barrels over its new UK datacenter
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:33:02 +0200
The Reg was there as locals aired grievances over poor communication, noise, and light pollution at Waltham Cross facility


Why Digital Forensic Reports Don’t Survive Cross-Examination
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:20:22 +0200
A forensic report is not a summary of finished work. It’s a claim that has to survive someone trying to take it apart, and most reports aren’t built for that. A lot of what gets filed today is automated tool output with a cover letter attached: the examiner runs a parser, exports a spreadsheet, writes […]


Why enterprises should care about Nokia’s AI-RAN platform
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:13:45 +0200

		
					  
						




Earlier this month, Nokia provided an AI-RAN platform update that brings an AI-native and programmable compute which is projected to double spectral efficiency by 2028. This increases speed, but more importantly, it can allow mobile operators to create some actual monetization beyond connectivity.



With this release, Nokia is introducing what it calls the industry’s first commercial AI-RAN platform, built on its AI‑native anyRAN software and Nvidia’s Aerial AI-RAN stack running on merchant GPU-based accelerated computing. The company is already seeing more than 20% gains in spectral efficiency from AI-driven radio algorithms, with a roadmap to reach 50% by 2027 and more than 100% by 2028, effectively doubling capacity on existing spectrum in dense cells.



Legacy RAN infrastructure enables connectivity but not much beyond that. The AI-RAN makes the network intelligent and extends AI into the physical world, enabling telcos to get more from their infrastructure investments, including providing a path to 6G. The partnership with Nvidia brings CUDA and AI into mobile environments.



For Network World readers, the headline isn’t just that Nokia got to market first with AI‑RAN—it’s that the company is using AI and GPUs to break the historical coupling between radio performance and custom silicon refresh cycles, and to turn the RAN into an application platform.



What AI-RAN actually is



At a technical level, Nokia’s AI‑RAN is a software‑defined baseband architecture that runs Layer 1/Layer 2 RAN functions and AI models on accelerated compute, primarily GPUs, instead of being locked into fixed‑function ASICs. Udayan Mukherjee, Nokia’s CTO for RAN and core, summarized the vision in the analyst briefing: “AI‑RAN is essentially a platform that turns the radio network into a true AI‑native programmable platform… one software detached from the hardware, defining flexible hardware deployment configurations, including part of the AI grid.”



Several pillars stand out:




AI‑native design: Algorithms move from traditional linear models to increasingly nonlinear techniques (e.g., advanced channel estimation, deep receivers/transmitters, RKHS-based methods), which demand tensor-heavy compute best delivered by GPUs.



Software-defined RAN: The same anyRAN software stack runs across different hardware configurations—plug‑in cards, standalone AI‑RAN nodes, and COTS/cloud RAN—so innovation comes via software releases rather than baseband card swaps.



Programmable “D‑apps” layer: Nokia is pushing a new real‑time E3 interface from Layer 1/2 into an application layer for distributed apps (D‑apps) that can tap IQ samples, channel estimation and scheduling data for use cases such as sensing and location services.



Crucially, this isn’t meant to replace all custom silicon overnight. Mukherjee was explicit: “We are not dropping the purpose‑built product… but we want to also get to merchant silicon, because that’s the future as we want to develop bigger models and AI elements and value‑added services on top of it.” The result is a hybrid era where AI‑accelerated platforms coexist with existing basebands but begin to shoulder the most compute‑intensive workloads.




Why AI-RAN matters for operators



Nokia and its early operator partners are trying to solve three perennial problems: finite spectrum, changing traffic patterns, and the drag of hardware refresh cycles.



First, spectrum constraints. Aji Ed, Nokia’s head of AI‑RAN and cloud RAN, called spectrum “the first constraint everybody has,” noting that operators have paid “huge amount of money” for bands and now need to “get up to the 2x spectrum” in terms of usable capacity. By running more complex AI models for multi‑user MIMO pairing, channel estimation, carrier aggregation and deep receiver/transmitter functions on GPUs, Nokia believes it can unlock those gains where traditional platforms simply run out of compute headroom.



Second, traffic is shifting. Generative AI and distributed inference workloads are driving more uplink-heavy, latency‑sensitive patterns that current RANs weren’t designed for. AI‑RAN’s ability to adapt scheduling, beamforming and resource allocation dynamically via AI models deployed at the baseband is meant to keep up with this shift.



Third, innovation cadence. In Ed’s words, “hardware upgrades can’t keep up with the innovation… we can’t really have a silicon refresh cycle linked with every three‑year cycle.” Nokia’s subscription‑based software model is designed to deliver new AI algorithms, spectral‑efficiency improvements and network optimization features continuously, without requiring “forklift” hardware replacements.



For operators, the message is attractive: comparable TCO and power to existing basebands, “no hardware premium” for GPU adoption, but higher capacity and a path to new services. Nokia told analysts it has reached performance, price and energy efficiency parity between its custom GridShark silicon and GPU-based systems, while moving the baseband roadmap to merchant silicon.



Nokia’s differentiation strategy



Every major RAN vendor is talking about AI‑enhanced radio, but Nokia is drawing a line between incremental gains and what it claims is a platform shift. When asked why its 2x spectral efficiency ambition is so much higher than the ~20% numbers competitors discuss, Ed pointed to the underlying architecture: “We are able to bring much more complex algorithms into this compute infrastructure… all of these require much higher compute, which is exactly what is coming from the accelerated computing.”



Several differentiators emerge:




Aggressive spectral roadmap: Nokia is targeting 1.5x by 2027 and 2x by 2028, across TDD massive MIMO and FDD scenarios, with a feature roadmap built jointly with Nvidia and other partners.



Single code base, three deployment paths: The same anyRAN software stack runs on (1) a GPU‑powered AirScale capacity plug‑in card, (2) a high‑capacity standalone AI‑RAN node, and (3) GPU‑based COTS/cloud RAN servers. This lets operators modernize “at their own pace” and mix brownfield evolution with greenfield AI-native deployments.



Open ecosystem with D‑apps: Nokia is leaning into ORAN compliance (front‑haul, O1/O2) and actively championing the E3 interface and D‑apps concept within ORAN and AI‑RAN alliances, with Bell Labs and at least two external partners already building sensing and location applications on the platform.



Software subscription tied to value: The commercial model builds on existing software subscriptions but ties pricing more explicitly to delivered value, such as spectral efficiency improvements and new AI services, rather than pure license metrics.




Mukherjee emphasized the openness angle in the briefing: “We see a lot of third‑party applications, whether it’s improving spectral efficiency or location service or sensing, can be developed on this platform… any AI‑powered services from us in Nokia or from ecosystems can be actually developed on top of it.” For operators burned by closed optimization stacks, that’s a notable pivot.



How AI-RAN unlocks new revenue



Most operators will sign off on AI‑RAN if the capacity and TCO story holds, but the more strategic question is monetization beyond connectivity. Nokia’s spokespeople spent considerable time on this in the analyst call, pointing to several classes of services that are difficult or impossible to deliver without AI running in the RAN itself.



Examples include:




Integrated sensing: Turning the RAN into a distributed sensor grid that can support applications such as 3D mapping, gesture recognition and environmental monitoring, using the same RF infrastructure. Mukherjee noted, “We have at least two to three partners developing sensing applications on top of it… as well as two other companies developing location services.”



Physical AI and location services: For factories, logistics hubs and smart cities, AI‑RAN can provide high‑precision positioning and real‑time telemetry for robots, drones and autonomous systems by fusing radio data and AI models at the edge.



Distributed AI infrastructure: Operators exploring “AI‑native cities” can use AI‑RAN nodes and COTS GPU servers as a distributed inference fabric for applications that need tight latency to endpoints—think AR/VR offload, real‑time video analytics or interactive generative AI experiences.



Premium connectivity tiers: With fine‑grained, AI‑driven control over uplink/downlink scheduling and QoS, operators can create differentiated SLAs for enterprise slices, mission‑critical IoT and AI workloads, charging for guaranteed performance rather than best‑effort connectivity.




Ed framed the opportunity as a continuum: Superior connectivity from 2x spectral efficiency creates “space for new AI workloads and other use cases,” while the D‑apps ecosystem and subscription model provide a mechanism to package and sell those capabilities. In practice, that could look like:




Industrial sensing-as-a-service, where Nokia and partners supply D‑apps for integrated sensing and positioning, and operators monetize them per site or per device.



Network‑exposed APIs for inference, location and RF sensing, integrated into operators’ broader network API portfolios as they pursue “network-as-a-platform” strategies.



Sector‑specific AI‑native services, such as stadium analytics, transportation corridor monitoring, or drone traffic management, built by ISVs on top of Nokia’s exposed E3 data.




For operators that already use Nokia’s MantaRay and SMO stacks for cross‑network optimization, AI‑RAN essentially becomes the local real‑time execution environment, while R‑apps/X‑apps continue to orchestrate macro-level behaviors. Mukherjee described this layered architecture as “DU and CU on the platform running D‑apps using E3, interfacing to X‑apps and R‑apps through E2SM and connecting to the overall management system/SMO for lifecycle management.”



Adoption path and reality check



Nokia is not promising instant transformation. AI‑RAN pilots are slated for late 2026, with commercial availability on card‑based systems in 2027 and AirScale-based systems around 2028, all driven from a single software stack that supports 4G, 5G and is upgradable to 6G. The company already has trials and collaborations underway with T‑Mobile US, SoftBank, Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison, BT, Elisa, Vodafone, Orange, NTT Docomo, Deutsche Telekom and others.



There are still open questions around 3GPP vs ORAN standardization of E3, the maturity of the D‑apps ecosystem, and how operators will digest yet another subscription layer tied to radio software. But Nokia’s move puts a stake in the ground: in the AI era, the RAN is not just a throughput engine; it’s a programmable AI computer that can be monetized.



For Network World readers evaluating vendor roadmaps, this launch suggests a clear directional change. If Nokia hits its targets, AI‑RAN could mark the point where baseband becomes less about hardware SKUs and more about an AI platform strategy—one where spectral efficiency and new services are rolled out at “software speed,” as Ed described it, rather than at the pace of the next card generation.



v17.1.1: fix(ci): repaired native builds broken by native audio stack deps
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:40:00 +0200

Added ensure-cmake action installing pinned cmake/ninja on omp-kata pods; audiopus_sys builds bundled libopus via CMake (Ninja for MSVC cross).
Set CMAKE_POLICY_VERSION_MINIMUM=3.5 globally and in build-native.ts: the bundled opus tree declares cmake_minimum_required below 3.5, which CMake 4.x refuses.
Dropped the -C target-cpu=native fallback for non-x64 native builds: it baked build-host CPU features into shipped darwin arm64 addons and trips ring 0.17's aarch64-apple const assertion.



World's First Wave Power Generator Receives Certification For Regular Use
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:10:23 +0200
"The Norwegian certification agency DNV has certified the commercial wave-driven power generator Corpower C4 for regular use," writes Longtime Slashdot reader Qbertino. "German news site heise.de has a detailed write-up. See a CGI video of the power station and its internals, as well as the company's website [at their respective links]." From the report (translated to English): According to the manufacturer Corpower Ocean, it is the first DNV prototype certificate for a wave energy converter. The certificate confirms that Corpower's technology meets DNV's requirements for structural strength, reliability, and safety, Corpower Ocean announced. The certification process began in the design phase and lasted seven years. DNV oversaw the process from concept development through design, manufacturing, and assembly, to dry-running tests and subsequent operation.
 
This is an important step, said Patrik Moller, CEO and one of the founders of Corpower Ocean. With the certification, wave energy is no longer just a promising technology, but a proven and financially viable one. This opens up new opportunities for project financing, insurance, and investments in commercial applications. The Corpower C4 wave power plant looks like a normal buoy: It consists of a 19-meter-long floating body with a diameter of 9 meters and a weight of approximately 11 tons. The system is anchored to the seabed. A mechanism inside the buoy converts its up-and-down movements in the waves into a rotary motion. This, in turn, drives a generator that produces electricity. The report notes that the company is "planning the first two industrial-scale wave energy farms off the coasts of Portugal and Scotland," which are scheduled to begin operating sometime between 2027 and 2029.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Ransomware groups are hammering your vulnerable VPNs
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:10:09 +0200

		
					  
						




Cybercriminals are actively exploiting a recently discovered vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall and VPN appliances to deploy the Qilin ransomware strain.



A critical authentication bypass flaw (CVE-2026-0257) in Palo Alto GlobalProtect portal and gateway was the common link in a series of intrusions in June, Arctic Wolf Labs warns. Exploitation of the vulnerability came within days of disclosure.



“Post-exploitation tradecraft varied across intrusions, from rapid encryption-only operations to full double-extortion, possibly suggesting multiple affiliates operating under the Qilin ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) umbrella,” Arctic Wolf’s researchers wrote in a post on the threat.



The campaign against Palo Alto’s VPN client is part of a rising trend that sees ransomware groups increasingly targeting vulnerabilities in network edge tools and devices.



Ransomware takes aim at the edge



Beyond GlobalProtect, Qilin — the most active threat group in Q2 2026, responsible for 14% of attacks, according to NCC Group’s latest Quarterly Cyber Threat Intelligence Report —  has also targeted flaws in Fortinet’s FortiGate, Citrix NetScaler, and Check Point Remote Access VPN.



Check Point warned in June of ransomware attacks against VPNs that still use the deprecated Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) protocol. Citrix issued patches in early July for a CitrixBleed-like flaw in its NetScalar devices that had come under attack.



Meanwhile, Fortibleed, a massive credential-compromise campaign, exposed 75,000 FortiGate firewalls in June.  



Qilin is by no means alone in increasing its operations against VPNs and other network security tools.



The Gentlemen, No. 2 on NCC Group’s list with 238 victims in Q2 2026, is noted for breaking into organizations through firewalls, VPNs, and other internet-exposed systems — FortiGate and Cisco products in particular.



Akira, No. 4 on NCC Group’s list (127 victims), is also known for exploiting VPN vulnerabilities and abusing legitimate credentials, primarily versus products from Ivanti, Cisco, and Fortinet.



In the line of fire



Network edge security devices are becoming security liabilities for enterprise security professionals, with an alarming rise in zero-day exploits arising from what experts describe as basic and readily preventable vulnerabilities.



A range of attackers spanning opportunistic hackers to ransomware-as-a-service operators and nation-state sponsored APT (advanced persistent threat) groups are actively exploiting software vulnerabilities in edge devices to hack into corporate networks.



“Although there has not been a material rise in ransomware volume in the last quarter, the trajectory of attacks continues upwards, and VPNs remain an increasingly attractive target,” said Matt Hull, VP and head of cyber intelligence and response at NCC Group.



Unpatched vulnerabilities in edge devices are far from the only software bugs fueling ransomware attacks. For example, last year the Clop ransomware gang hacked hundreds of companies by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in Oracle’s E-Business Suite software.



Edge of darkness



VPNs and other internet-facing edge devices remain prime targets for ransomware operators because they provide a direct route into an organization’s network.



“Attackers may exploit an unpatched vulnerability, use stolen credentials, or target weak authentication controls,” said Alexander Leslie, a senior advisor at cyber threat intelligence firm Recorded Future. “In some cases, exploitation begins before organizations have had sufficient time to apply vendor guidance, leaving security teams with a very narrow window to respond.”



VPN exploitation sits alongside other initial access methods, such as phishing, compromised credentials, or software supply chain attacks. The preferred attacker infiltration method varies by campaign and sector but locating security in edge devices carry particular advantages from the perspective of attackers.



“Vulnerabilities in perimeter devices are particularly valuable to attackers because those systems are continuously exposed to the internet and can provide privileged access while bypassing some endpoint controls,” said Leslie.



Dray Agha, senior manager of security operations at managed detection and response firm Huntress, backed up this assessment that exploiting internet-facing VPNs and edge devices remains the “dominant, volume-driven tactic” for ransomware operators because these appliances offer a “direct, publicly accessible gateway straight into the heart of corporate networks.”



Rather than exploiting vulnerabilities in edge devices, attackers more commonly use internet-facing gateways as a means to abuse stolen credentials to break into corporate networks, according to Huntress.



“What we see at Huntress is that the VPN is the site of initial access some 70% of the time, for advanced threat actors,” said Agha. “Overwhelmingly, however, they are not exploiting for access; rather they are using stolen credentials to authenticate to non-MFA’d [multi-factor authentication] user accounts.”



Hardened perimeter



CSOs should treat their network perimeter as hostile territory by enforcing aggressive patch management, applying critical edge device updates within 24 to 48 hours, and mandating strict MFA for all access.



Implementing zero-trust network segmentation to trap attackers and prevent lateral movement if the initial gateway is compromised also helps in making enterprise networks more resilient against attacks, Huntress’ Agha advised.



Phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication, removal of unsupported systems, and close monitoring for unusual authentication or administrative activity also form key components in attack impact mitigation.



Internet-facing assets that are known to be actively exploited should be prioritized as a patching priority.



“Threat intelligence and evidence of active exploitation should help determine which vulnerabilities demand immediate action,” Recorded Future’s Leslie said.



CVE-2026-8419 | submone Amazon Scraper Plugin up to 1.1 on WordPress Setting cross-site request forgery
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:00:28 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in submone Amazon Scraper Plugin up to 1.1 on WordPress. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component Setting Handler. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-8419. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-8418 | askywhale Games Catalog Plugin up to 1.2.0 on WordPress GET Request gc_crud cross-site request forgery
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:00:27 +0200
A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in askywhale Games Catalog Plugin up to 1.2.0 on WordPress. The affected element is the function gc_crud of the component GET Request Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2026-8418. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

Upgrading the affected component is recommended.


Ransomware gangs go after EMEA healthcare’s supply chain
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:09:50 +0200
A ransomware attack against a hospital makes headlines, while attacks on the rest of the ecosystem around it tend to stay quiet despite doing damage that can be just as bad. Flare researcher Assaf Morag analyzed ransomware leak-site activity tied…
Read more →
The post Ransomware gangs go after EMEA healthcare’s supply chain appeared first on IT Security News.


Ransomware gangs go after EMEA healthcare’s supply chain
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:41:57 +0200
A ransomware attack against a hospital makes headlines, while attacks on the rest of the ecosystem around it tend to stay quiet despite doing damage that can be just as bad. Flare researcher Assaf Morag analyzed ransomware leak-site activity tied to healthcare organizations in the EMEA region between 2024 and 2026, and found that ransomware groups are going after the entire healthcare supply chain. The dataset covers hospitals and clinics, telemedicine providers, diagnostic laboratories, pharmacies, … More →
The post Ransomware gangs go after EMEA healthcare’s supply chain appeared first on Help Net Security.


How to Build an End-to-End OCR Pipeline with Baidu’s Unlimited-OCR for High-Resolution Images and Multi-Page PDF Parsing
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:36:15 +0200
In this tutorial, we build a complete workflow for running Baidu’s Unlimited-OCR model on document images and multi-page PDFs. From configuring the GPU environment to comparing high-detail tiled Gundam inference and faster Base modes, you'll learn how to process dense layouts, tables, and cross-page content in a reproducible, end-to-end pipeline.
The post How to Build an End-to-End OCR Pipeline with Baidu’s Unlimited-OCR for High-Resolution Images and Multi-Page PDF Parsing appeared first on MarkTechPost.


CVE-2022-40178 | Siemens Desigo PXG3.W200-2 Operation Web Application cross site scripting (ssa-360783 / EUVD-2022-43481)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:28:23 +0200
A vulnerability categorized as problematic has been discovered in Siemens Desigo PXM30-1, Desigo PXM30.E, Desigo PXM40-1, Desigo PXM40.E, Desigo PXM50-1, Desigo PXM50.E, Desigo PXG3.W100-1, Desigo PXG3.W100-2, Desigo PXG3.W200-1 and Desigo PXG3.W200-2. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Operation Web Application. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2022-40178. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2022-40179 | Siemens Desigo PXG3.W200-2 Operation Web Application cross-site request forgery (ssa-360783 / EUVD-2022-43482)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:28:22 +0200
A vulnerability identified as problematic has been detected in Siemens Desigo PXM30-1, Desigo PXM30.E, Desigo PXM40-1, Desigo PXM40.E, Desigo PXM50-1, Desigo PXM50.E, Desigo PXG3.W100-1, Desigo PXG3.W100-2, Desigo PXG3.W200-1 and Desigo PXG3.W200-2. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component Operation Web Application. This manipulation causes cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is registered as CVE-2022-40179. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

You should upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2022-40180 | Siemens Desigo PXG3.W200-2 Operation Web Application cross-site request forgery (ssa-360783 / EUVD-2022-43483)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:28:15 +0200
A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in Siemens Desigo PXM30-1, Desigo PXM30.E, Desigo PXM40-1, Desigo PXM40.E, Desigo PXM50-1, Desigo PXM50.E, Desigo PXG3.W100-1, Desigo PXG3.W100-2, Desigo PXG3.W200-1 and Desigo PXG3.W200-2. This affects an unknown function of the component Operation Web Application. Such manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2022-40180. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

The affected component should be upgraded.


CVE-2022-40181 | Siemens Desigo PXG3.W200-2 Device Embedded Browser cross site scripting (ssa-360783 / EUVD-2022-43484)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:28:13 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Siemens Desigo PXM30-1, Desigo PXM30.E, Desigo PXM40-1, Desigo PXM40.E, Desigo PXM50-1, Desigo PXM50.E, Desigo PXG3.W100-1, Desigo PXG3.W100-2, Desigo PXG3.W200-1 and Desigo PXG3.W200-2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the component Device Embedded Browser. The manipulation results in improper neutralization of encoded uri schemes in a web page.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40181. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

Upgrading the affected component is advised.


VW macht es wieder: ID Cross startet 8.000 Euro über dem Einstiegspreis
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:07:23 +0200
Oh nein, VW macht es schon wieder. Erst hat man beim ID. Polo mehr als zwei Jahre mit einem Einstiegspreis von 25.000 Euro geworben, nur…
Dieser Artikel VW macht es wieder: ID Cross startet 8.000 Euro über dem Einstiegspreis erschien zuerst auf SmartDroid.de.


CVE-2022-40011 | typora up to 1.38 Export from Editor cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43336)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 04:26:15 +0200
A vulnerability was found in typora up to 1.38. It has been classified as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Export from Editor. This manipulation causes cross site scripting.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2022-40011. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2022-40034 | Rawchen blog-ssm 1.0 notifyInfo cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43358)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 04:26:12 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Rawchen blog-ssm 1.0. It has been declared as problematic. The impacted element is an unknown function. The manipulation of the argument notifyInfo results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2022-40034. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.


AgentForger proves AI agents can become persistent insider threats
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:32:32 +0200

		
					  
						




A new attack method found by Zenity Labs reveals that AI agents are becoming persistent insiders that attackers can recruit, rather than malware they have to install.



Its researchers have discovered AgentForger, a phishing-based attack that silently creates and launches a fully autonomous AI agent within OpenAI workspaces.



Once running, the agent has full access to apps like Outlook, Slack, SharePoint, and Google Drive. It is configured to operate indefinitely without further user interaction, can approve its own access by toggling “never ask” settings, and can continue to act on new assignments sent via email by the attackers that control it. Broad, unfettered access to systems allows it to perform reconnaissance, harvest sensitive data and credentials, impersonate victims, and launch phishing campaigns.



While OpenAI resolved the vulnerability four days after disclosure, on a larger scale, AgentForger sheds light on what can happen when AI agents go rogue.



“We’re moving into a world where software doesn’t just help people work. It works alongside them,” said Michael Bargury, co-founder and CTO of agentic AI security platform Zenity. “As AI agents become more capable, attackers will naturally look for ways to influence them, just as they’ve always looked for ways to influence people.”



A ‘persistent operator’ that acts without approval



OpenAI’s Workspace Agents can connect and work autonomously across Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, and Teams. Users open the agent builder, describe what the agent can do in natural language, connect to tools, set approvals, review and test, schedule actions, then publish. For instance, an agent can autonomously handle incoming emails, review and take actions with approval, gather information from various sources to send out daily briefings, or automatically respond to questions in ChatGPT or Slack channels.



Normally, this is “useful automation,” Zenity AI red team researcher Mike Takahashi wrote in a blog post. But in this attack, “the same scheduler becomes the persistence mechanism.”



The creation workflow kicks off the moment a user clicks on a phishing link containing instructions from the threat actor. For the attack to work, a victim must be logged into ChatGPT and Workspace Agents, and have at least one integration with another app, such as Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, or Teams.



Because those connections already exist, OAuth consent screens are not triggered. Furthermore, the victim does not need to click on another link, keep a Builder tab open, or even visit ChatGPT again.



The forged agent is a “persistent operator;” it is installed on the original click and given a schedule, and at those predetermined times, the agent invokes itself, scans for emails from attacker addresses with the subject line “task”, carries those orders out, then returns results to the same attacker-controlled email address.



It goes undetected because the attacker prompt instructs the Builder to toggle Outlook to never ask for approval of its actions. Typically, the default is “always ask,” to keep agents from taking unauthorized action; that switch gives agents the ability to act without asking for human approval.



“AgentForger showed that an attacker could deploy an autonomous insider agent inside your ChatGPT workspace with a single click,” said Bargury. From there, it can continue to access information, harvest credentials from various sources, impersonate employees, and carry out phishing attacks and fraud while “leveraging the trusted victim’s identity.”



A ‘planted accomplice’ that does all the work



Once activated, AgentForger can perform reconnaissance to create an internal map of a company. For instance, agents can scan Outlook, Slack, Teams, Google Drive, SharePoint, or calendar data to identify people, roles, active projects, internal discussions, or all-hands recurring meetings. This can help attackers identify where in the enterprise to target next, based on active teams and channels, projects in the works, or prominent users.



“This is the kind of internal context an attacker normally has to build slowly,” Takahashi noted. But in this scenario, action is based on a single emailed assignment. The attacker’s “planted accomplice” does all the work.



In another scenario, the agent can steal data by searching for and identifying financial documents, business agreements, or invoices. Or, it can steal credentials by scanning for messages containing passwords, one-time codes, access tokens, password recovery links, or API keys. Further, it can impersonate victims to carry out phishing scams, for instance, by sending legitimate-looking Teams messages instructing users to confirm their credentials on a fake Microsoft login page.



In all cases, collected information is organized, analyzed, and sent back to the attacker.



“AgentForger points to something much bigger than a single vulnerability,” said Bargury. “It’s less about one bug and more about understanding how the security model changes as AI becomes part of everyday business operations.”



FOMO exposing security gaps



This isn’t necessarily about trust, but more about the need to move fast and adapt, Bargury emphasized. AI agents are helping employees automate work, make decisions faster, and get more done. But enterprises fear they’ll fall behind if they don’t move quickly enough.



“The challenge is that we’re introducing a fundamentally new kind of technology into the enterprise,” said Bargury. “The pressure to integrate the next AI feature is outpacing the security controls needed to safely deploy it.”



However, the answer isn’t to slow down adoption, he emphasized; the business value is too significant. Rather, the first step is understanding where AI agents exist, who created them, what they’re connected to, and what they’re allowed to do. And when it comes to autonomous agents, enterprises need to pay attention to the processes that trigger them: A schedule, an incoming email, or another automated event.



“Those triggers should be governed just as carefully as the agent itself,” said Bargury.



High-impact actions should require approval where appropriate, and security teams should be able to quickly disable an agent or its triggers if something doesn’t look right, he said.



More broadly, AI agents are introducing the need for a new security model, he pointed out. The question is no longer just “Does this agent have permission?” It’s also, “Is this the behavior we intended?”



“The organizations that answer both questions will be in the strongest position to adopt AI safely,” Bargury said.



CVE-2022-40004 | Things Board 3.4.1 URL cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43329)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:10:03 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Things Board 3.4.1 and classified as problematic. Affected is an unknown function of the component URL Handler. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40004. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


CVE-2022-40010 | Tenda AC6/AC1200 15.03.06.50_multi Parental Control deviceId cross site scripting (ID 173029 / EUVD-2022-43335)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:10:00 +0200
A vulnerability identified as problematic has been detected in Tenda AC6 and AC1200 15.03.06.50_multi. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Parental Control Module. This manipulation of the argument deviceId causes cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2022-40010. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.


Workshops Page is Live! Reg Opening Soon!
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 01:56:34 +0200
 

    
Prepare yourselves! DEF CON 34 Workshop registration goes live at noon PDT on July 14! First come, first served.

    The full course lineup is available on the DEF CON site and the humantix link you'll use is here.

    Make sure to limber up your clicking mechanism of choice and stay hydrated.

    Godspeed and good luck to all of you!


Windows 11 now supports resuming WhatsApp from Android, but you’ll wait longer for the app to load
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 01:31:30 +0200
Windows 11's cross-device Resume feature has reached WhatsApp, letting you tap a taskbar badge to pick up Android chats on your PC. I tested it, and while the idea mirrors Apple's Handoff nicely, WhatsApp's sluggish WebView2 wrapper takes so long to load that picking up your phone is faster.
The post Windows 11 now supports resuming WhatsApp from Android, but you’ll wait longer for the app to load appeared first on Windows Latest


My favorite music streaming site just got a big update that makes me even happier I quit Spotify six months ago
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:36:08 +0200
The high-res audio streaming service Qobuz has got an app upgrade that makes it much easier to use. Here's what's changed.


CVE-2022-3992 | SourceCodester Sanitization Management System Banner Image admin/?page=system_info cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43321)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:42:58 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in SourceCodester Sanitization Management System. Impacted is an unknown function of the file admin/?page=system_info of the component Banner Image Handler. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-3992. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Furthermore, an exploit is available.


The Rise of Agentic SRE: Humans, Agents, and Reliability
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 22:44:10 +0200
Site reliability engineering has always been about reducing toil, improving resilience and helping teams respond to incidents with speed and confidence. Agentic SRE takes this idea further, allowing AI systems to observe, reason, and act within operational workflows inside of…
Read more →
The post The Rise of Agentic SRE: Humans, Agents, and Reliability appeared first on IT Security News.


CVE-2022-3988 | Frappe Search navbar_search.html q cross site scripting (ID 18847 / EUVD-2022-43317)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:41:04 +0200
A vulnerability has been found in Frappe and classified as problematic. Impacted is an unknown function of the file frappe/templates/includes/navbar/navbar_search.html of the component Search. This manipulation of the argument q causes cross site scripting.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2022-3988. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.


CVE-2026-9577 | Post Status Notifier Lite Plugin 1.10.1 on WordPress Admin Settings Page admin.php mod cross site scripting (CNNVD-2026-78008653)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:40:44 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Post Status Notifier Lite Plugin 1.10.1 on WordPress. It has been declared as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the file admin.php of the component Admin Settings Page. Such manipulation of the argument mod leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-9577. The attack can be launched remotely. No exploit exists.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


Agentic orchestration: Enterprise AI organizations have a deployment problem, not a platform problem — and most are calling chatbots agents
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:45 +0200
Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agents” are still chatbot wrappers, the control plane enterprises expect is deliberately hybrid to avoid lock-in, and real-time fiscal control over token burn remains the exception.
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.


The agent evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:44 +0200
Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.
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.


The AI context gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a trust problem, not a retrieval problem — and most are still building the fix
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:42 +0200
Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.
The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.
Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.
Methodology
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.
By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.
At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.
Finding 1: Confident and wrong
More than half have traced agent errors to bad context
We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.
This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know. 
The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.
Finding 2: RAG is the default context source
Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method
We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.
Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.
One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.
Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases
OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools
We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.
The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.
The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.
Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed
A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack
We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.
Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.
Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet
Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient
We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.
The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.
Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now
Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production
We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.
The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the "confident but wrong" failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.
Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness
Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security
We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.
Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%). 
Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.
Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming
A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest
We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.
The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.
The bottom line: A context gap that more retrieval alone won’t close
Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation.
The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.
Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it's a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.


The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:41 +0200
Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.
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.


The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:39 +0200
Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.
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.


New Geekbench 7 benchmark adds AI workloads, better reflects 2026 computer use cases
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:15:30 +0200
Primate Labs released Geekbench 7 for macOS, iOS, Android, Windows, and Linux, redesigning its cross-platform benchmark to better reflect how current software uses CPUs and GPUs.

Geekbench 7

The update changes Geekbench's multi-core methodology and adds workloads for artificial intelligence, media processing, gaming, and content creation. Primate Labs says the revisions account for increasingly demanding computing tasks and the larger data sets handled by modern devices.

Geekbench 7 remains free for personal use.


 Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums


CVE-2026-7613 | PixelYourSite Cost of Goods Plugin up to 1.2.12 on WordPress cross site scripting
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:01:47 +0200
A vulnerability categorized as problematic has been discovered in PixelYourSite Cost of Goods Plugin up to 1.2.12 on WordPress. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. Such manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-7613. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2026-47057 | Oracle Java SE Scripting privileges management (Nessus ID 329174)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:46:06 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Oracle Java SE. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Scripting. Performing a manipulation results in improper privilege management.

This vulnerability was named CVE-2026-47057. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.


CVE-2026-47058 | Oracle Java SE 8u491/8u491-perf/11.0.31 Scripting improper authorization (Nessus ID 329174)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:46:05 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Oracle Java SE 8u491/8u491-perf/11.0.31. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component Scripting. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper authorization.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-47058. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2026-4293 | Kieback & Peter DDC520 up to 1.12.14 cross site scripting (icsa-26-139-05)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:49:29 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Kieback & Peter DDC4002, DDC4100, DDC4200, DDC4200-L, DDC4400, DDC4002e, DDC4200e, DDC4400e, DDC4020e, DDC4040e and DDC520 up to 1.12.14. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2026-4293. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-5783 | Beyaz CityPLus 24.29375/24.29500.1.0 cross site scripting
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:49:27 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Beyaz CityPLus 24.29375/24.29500.1.0. The affected element is an unknown function. Such manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2026-5783. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

You should upgrade the affected component.


Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:59:29 +0200
Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite
Executive summary 
A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].
LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.
Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.
This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

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

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).  
As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.
For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

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

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

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

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the U.S. government’s understanding for all activity related to these groupings.
Background
Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.  
The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].  
Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named “Улей” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

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

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

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

Technical details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FEND^TM version 1.4.0¹⁵. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.
Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.
Reconnaissance
LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].  
After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].  
Resource development 
The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.
Flowerbed framework
Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

Catcher,
Certbot,
Nginx, and
Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.
The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.
Initial access
To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.





  
      




      Figure 1: Example of malicious email
  





  
      




      Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email
  
According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].  
Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.
Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

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






  
      




      Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email
  
Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].
Persistence and credential access
To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.
The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.
During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.





  
      




      Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element
  





  
      




      Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element
  
LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.
ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.
Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.
Collection
As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.


Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used





SOAP Command 






Namespace 






Stage 










GetInfoRequest 






zimbraAccount 






gather_environment 








GetDeviceStatusRequest 






zimbraSync 






gather_device_status 








GetOAuthConsumersRequest 






zimbraAccount 






gather_oauth_consumers 








SearchGalRequest 






zimbraAccount 






gather_gal 






The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.
During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.


Table 2: ZCS webmail client types





Indicator 






Client Type 






Associated Value 










?client=advanced 






Advanced 






c 








/h/ 






Standard 






h 








/modern/ 






Modern 






m 






As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.  
According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.
The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.
Exfiltration
At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.
Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.  
DNS exfiltration
DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.





  
      




      Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS
  
When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.  


Table 3: DNS exfiltration





Type of Information 






Exfiltration Stage 






Data Type 










Victim’s Email Address 






gather_email 






e 








Client Type 






gather_environment 






c 








Zimbra Version 






gather_environment  






v 








URL at Time of Exploitation 






gather_environment 






url 








2FA Scratch Codes 






gather_2fa_codes 






2fa 








Newly Created Application Password 






gather_app_password 






pa 








Harvested Autocomplete Password 






gather_autocomplete_password 






pw 






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


Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types





Content Type 






URL Path 










application/json 






/v/p 








application/octet-stream 






/v/d 











  
      




      Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS
  
Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.  
Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.


Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration  





Type of Information 






Exfiltration Stage 






JSON Key(s) 










Victim’s Email Address 






gather_email 






email 








Client Type, Version, and Current URL 






gather_environment 






client, version, full_url 








Newly Created Application Password 






gather_app_password 






app_password 








Harvested Autocomplete Password 






gather_autocomplete_password 






autocomplete_password 






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




 Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration





Type of Information 






Exfiltration Stage 






X-Filename Header 










SOAP request for GetInfoRequest 






gather_environment 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest 






gather_2fa_codes 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest 






gather_device_status 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest 






gather_oauth_consumers 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








Victim Organization’s Global Address List 






gather_gal 






telemetry_{1-20}.json 








Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails 






sendArchives 






telemetryData_{0-89}.json 








The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.
At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).  
Catcher
Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.
Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.
The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.  
However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

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

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

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

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





  
      




      Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup
  
Response strategies
Mitigations
In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.
All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].
System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.
Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.  
Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

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

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


Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure





Domain 






IP Address 






First Seen 






Last Seen 










zmailanalytics[.]com 






216.252.238[.]104 






8 July 2025 






15 October 2025 








zimbra-metadata[.]com 






216.252.238[.]18 






20 August 2025 






14 October 2025 








analyticemailmeter[.]com 






37.120.247[.]228 






24 September 2025 






18 March 2026 








emailanalytics.com[.]ua 






185.86.79[.]95 






24 September 2025 






18 March 2026 








mailnalysis[.]com 






104.248.134[.]194 






11 November 2025 






17 February 2026 








zimbrastat[.]com 






64.226.124[.]190 






18 December 2025 






18 March 2026 








zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 






193.238.152[.]66 






20 January 2026 






18 March 2026 








synacorzimbra[.]nl 






216.252.238[.]64 






3 February 2026 






30 March 2026 








istc-cloud[.]com 






194.156.103[.]193 






5 February 2026 






30 March 2026 








Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes  





Associated Domain 






X.509 SHA-1 Hash 






First Seen 






Last Seen 










zmailanalytics[.]com 






2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d 






8 Jul 2025 






6 Aug 2025 








*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com 






50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8 






6 Aug 2025 






13 Oct 2025 








*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com 






c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95 






20 Aug 2025 






14 Oct 2025 








*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com 






8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d 






24 Sep 2025 






8 Nov 2025 








*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua 






62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178 






25 Sep 2025 






27 Sep 2025 








*.i.mailnalysis[.]com 






cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a 






12 Nov 2025 






17 Dec 2025 








*.i.zimbrastat[.]com 






18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8 






18 Dec 2025 






28 Dec 2025 








*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 






1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded 






21 Jan 2026 






10 Feb 2026 








*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl 






e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a 






5 Feb 2026 






22 Mar 2026 








*.i.istc-cloud[.]com 






b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447 






12 Feb 2026 






30 Mar 2026 






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

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

Phishing distribution
LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.  
The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

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

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

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

Post-compromise artifacts
Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.
This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

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

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.
While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”
In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.  
Remediation
In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.
Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.
All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.
Works cited
[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf
[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/
[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/ 
[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit
[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/  
Footnotes
¹ Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
²Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³Välisluureamet
⁴ Sotilastiedustelu
⁵ Suojelupoliisi
⁶ Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
¹¹Agencja Wywiadu
¹²Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹³Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
¹⁴Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹⁵ MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.
Acknowledgements
The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.
Disclaimer of endorsement
The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.
Purpose
This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.
Contact


United States organizations 

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

Dutch organizations 

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

Australian organizations 

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

Canadian organizations 

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

New Zealand organizations 

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

United Kingdom organizations 

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

Estonia organizations 

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

Finnish organizations 

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

French organizations 

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

Italian Organizations 

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


Moldovan organizations 



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


Polish organizations 

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



Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques
See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.



Table 9: Reconnaissance 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials 






T1589.001 






The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager. 








Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses 






T1589.002 






The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores. 








Search Open Websites/Domains 






T1593 






This group likely leverages public information to support target development. 








Active Scanning 






T1595 






Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets. 








Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases 






T1596.005 






Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets. 








Search Closed Sources 






T1597 






Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts. 








Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data 






T1597.002 






Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts. 












Table 10: Resource Development 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Acquire Infrastructure 






T1583 






This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure. 








Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 






T1583.003 






This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors. 








Develop Capabilities 






T1587 






The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns. 








Develop Capabilities: Malware 






T1587.001 






Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information. 








Develop Capabilities: Exploits 






T1587.004 






Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript. 








Obtain Capabilities: Tool 






T1588.002 






Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group. 








Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence 






T1588.007 






The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts. 








Stage Capabilities 






T1608 






Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud. 












Table 11: Initial Access 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Valid Accounts 






T1078 






This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.  








Trusted Relationship 






T1199 






The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.  








Phishing 






T1566 






The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email. 












Table 12: Execution 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Exploitation for Client Execution 






T1203 






An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload. 












Table 13: Persistence 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Account Manipulation 






T1098 






Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account. 








Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 






T1556.006 






Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 












Table 14: Privilege Escalation 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Valid Accounts 






T1078 






This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.  












Table 15: Stealth 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation 






T1027.010 






Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability. 








Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File 






T1027.013 






The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload. 








Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling 






T1027.017 






The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email. 








Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie 






T1550.004 






Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate. 












Table 16: Credential Access 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 






T1556.006 






Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 








Adversary-in-the-Middle 






T1557 






Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies. 












Table 17: Collection 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Data Staged: Remote Data Staging 






T1074.002 






Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions. 








Email Collection 






T1114 






This group has emphasized collection of emails. 








Email Collection: Remote Email Collection 






T1114.002 






Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device. 








Automated Collection 






T1119 






Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages. 








Browser Session Hijacking 






T1185 






The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user. 








Archive Collected Data 






T1560 






Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression. 












Table 18: Discovery 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Account Discovery 






T1087 






Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target. 












Table 19: Exfiltration 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 






T1048 






Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS. 








Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol 






T1048.002 






Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS. 








Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol 






T1048.003 






Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding. 








Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures 
See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory. 



Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures 





Countermeasure Title 






ID 






Description 










Application Hardening 






D3-AH 







Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376.  
Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems. 









Isolate 






d3f:Isolate 






Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients. 








Credential Hardening 






D3-CH 






Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. 








Network Traffic Analysis 






D3-NTA 






Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization. 








DNS Traffic Analysis 






D3-DNSTA 






Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains. 








Network Traffic Community Deviation 






D3-NTCD 







Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. 
Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers. 









Identifier Activity Analysis 






D3-IAA 






Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs. 








Process Analysis 






D3-PA 







Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. 
Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes. 






Message Analysis
D3-MA
Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.







CVE-2026-7462 | vatanyazilim VatanSMS WP SMS Plugin up to 1.01 on WordPress page cross site scripting
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:07:10 +0200
A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in vatanyazilim VatanSMS WP SMS Plugin up to 1.01 on WordPress. This issue affects some unknown processing. Such manipulation of the argument page leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2026-7462. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.


Mozilla Addons Blog: Firefox 153 WebExtensions API updates
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:06:24 +0200
We had a bumper release of WebExtensions API updates in Firefox 153. To start, there is a permissions change that affects how your extensions access local files. We then have two contributions from the community members: userScripts.execute() and the new publicSuffix API. We’re covering those contributions in more depth, including the people behind them, in a separate post. And there is more, read on…
File access now requires a dedicated permission
Extensions that need to read file:// URLs used to get that access as part of the “Access your data for all websites” host permission. Starting in Firefox 153, file access is a separate, explicit permission, “Access local files on your computer”, shown in the extension’s permissions settings. It’s off by default for every extension, including ones already installed.
This change has a few concrete effects on code:

Before: an extension with  or a matching host permission could read file:// pages without any additional grant, and extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess() always returned false regardless of the permission setting.
After: the extension must have the new file-access permission granted, and extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess() correctly reflects whether the user has granted it.

async function checkFileSchemeAccess() {
  const isAllowed = await browser.extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess();

  if (!isAllowed) {
    await browser.notifications.create("file-scheme-access-needed", {
      type: "basic",
      iconUrl: browser.runtime.getURL("icons/icon-48.png"),
      title: "Local file access required",
      message:
        'This extension needs "Allow access to file URLs" enabled to work ' +
        "with local files. Go to about:addons → select this extension → " +
        "turn on that setting, then reload the page.",
    });
    return false;
  }

  return true;
}
devtools.inspectedWindow.eval() calls targeting file:// URLs are affected the same way; they now require this permission to succeed.
If your extension depends on file:// access, expect existing users to see that access stops after upgrading (until they enable the permission), and consider adding a prompt or fallback path, for example by specifying an embedded options page (options_ui) and calling browser.runtime.openOptionsPage() to open about:addons and including instructions to toggle the setting in the “Permissions and data” tab.
userScripts.execute() and publicSuffix: covered in our next post
Firefox 153 adds two community-contributed APIs:

userScripts.execute(), which provides for one-off injection of one or more user script sources into a tab or frame, in a defined order, as a complement to the persistent, URL-pattern-based userScripts.register().
publicSuffix, which enables synchronous lookups against the browser’s built-in Public Suffix List using publicSuffix.isKnownSuffix(), publicSuffix.getKnownSuffix(), and publicSuffix.getDomain(). This API means that extensions no longer need to bundle or maintain a suffix list to determine a hostname’s registrable domain (eTLD+1).

Both APIs were built by contributors motivated by real needs in their extensions. We take an in-depth look at these contributions, their developers, impact, and history in a forthcoming post.
documentId support across more APIs
Firefox 153 introduces documentId, a stable identifier for a document instance, including a new runtime.getDocumentId() method, several webNavigation events and methods, webRequest events, scripting injection targets, and the extension messaging APIs.
Many WebExtension APIs use tabId and frameId to identify where to perform an operation. However, because frameId identifies the frame rather than its content, the loaded document can change and the extension’s subsequent operation ends up targeting the new (intended) document. documentId addresses this problem by providing a unique ID for the document. Now, if an extension uses the ID and the frame’s document has changed, the operation fails rather than silently targeting the wrong document.
See Work with documentId for the full list of supported events and methods, along with guidance on using it.
Content scripts can read and modify adopted stylesheets
Content scripts can now access document.adoptedStyleSheets and ShadowRoot.adoptedStyleSheets directly.
const sheet = new CSSStyleSheet();
sheet.replaceSync("* { background: pink; }");
document.adoptedStyleSheets = [sheet];
This enables extensions to inspect or modify constructed stylesheets from a content script, without using .wrappedJSObject, a workaround that risks interference from the web page.
Theme manifest key: gradients in additional backgrounds
The theme manifest key’s images.additional_backgrounds property now accepts CSS gradients alongside image URLs. A new properties.additional_backgrounds_size property controls the size of each additional background item.
Contextual identities (containers)
If your extension supports contextual identities, you now have access to two new methods: contextualIdentities.getSupportedColors() and contextualIdentities.getSupportedIcons(). These methods return the supported colors and icons, so your extension doesn’t need to hardcode either list.
Also, the colors have been updated to align with the new UI theme: “turquoise” is now “cyan”, “toolbar” is now “gray”, and “violet” has been added. The old names still work for backward compatibility, but your extension should switch to using getSupportedColors() rather than hardcoding either the old or new names.
Add a build-for-amo script
While this isn’t about new APIs, I wanted to mention a change that’s part of our work to make source code review faster and more reliable. When you submit an extension version, AMO now attempts to build your extensions from the submitted source code and compares the result to the package you uploaded. When the two match, reviewers don’t have to verify the build manually. This means submission can move through its review faster.
For now, this applies only if you submit source code that includes a package.json file to build your extension. If your extension has no build step, or you use a different build system, nothing changes. The AMO builder keeps its zero-config approach.
So, if your extension’s source code uses a package.json file, add an npm script named build-for-amo that runs the commands needed to build your extension for Firefox:
{
  "scripts": {
    "fx-build": "some commands to build your add-on for Firefox",
    "build-for-amo": "npm run fx-build"
  }
}
If you’ve a Firefox-specific build command, just point build-for-amo at it. When present, the builder invokes this script instead of guessing how to build your extension. And while you are at it, make sure all your dev dependencies are listed in the package.json file.

For more information, including documentation and Bugzilla links, see the Changes for add-on developers section of the Firefox 153 for developers release notes on MDN.
As always, file extension-related issues on Bugzilla under the WebExtensions product, cross-browser API proposals are discussed in the W3C WebExtensions Community Group, and questions are welcome on the Add-ons Discourse.
 
The post Firefox 153 WebExtensions API updates appeared first on Mozilla Add-ons Community Blog.


Meta Logging Every Employee Keystroke | Threat Wire
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:35:16 +0200
Author: Hak5 - Bewertung: 10x - Views:88 
⬇️ OPEN FOR LINKS TO ARTICLES TO LEARN MORE ⬇️





@endingwithali →

Twitch: https://twitch.tv/endingwithali

Twitter: https://twitter.com/endingwithali

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@endingwithali

Everywhere else: https://links.ali.dev



Want to work with Ali? hak5@endingwithali.com



[❗] Join the Patreon→ https://patreon.com/threatwire

0:00 0 - Intro

1 - Linux AI Security Response

2 - GitHub Is Overwhelmed

3 - Meta’s Bad AI

4 - BSides News

5 - Outro



LINKS

🔗 Story 1: Linux AI Security Response

https://linuxsecurity.com/news/security-projects/akrites-vulnerability-response

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-and-industry-leaders-launch-akrites-to-defend-critical-open-source-software-against-ai-enabled-cyber-threats

🔗 Story 2: GitHub Is Overwhelmed

https://noma.security/blog/gitlost-how-we-tricked-githubs-ai-agent-into-leaking-private-repos/

https://cybersecuritynews.com/gitlost-vulnerability-github/

https://thehackernews.com/2026/07/dormant-github-accounts-help-attackers.html

https://securitylabs.datadoghq.com/articles/coordinated-github-api-enumeration/

https://thehackernews.com/2026/07/public-github-issue-could-trick-github.html

🔗 Story 3: Meta’s Bad AI

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-pauses-employee-tracking-program-following-internal-security-breach/

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-accidentally-let-employees-access-each-others-keystroke-data/

https://thehackernews.com/2026/07/metas-new-ai-image-tool-lets-others-use.html

https://cybernews.com/news/meta-pulls-controversial-ai-image-tool/

https://about.fb.com/news/2026/07/introducing-muse-image-meta-ai/

🔗 Story 4: BSides News

https://cybernews.com/news/apple-openai-lawsuit/

https://cybernews.com/tech/mamdami-click-to-cancel/

-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆-----☆

Our Site → https://www.hak5.org

Shop →  http://hakshop.myshopify.com/

Community → https://www.hak5.org/community

Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/user/Hak5Darren?sub_confirmation=1

Support → https://www.patreon.com/threatwire

Contact Us → http://www.twitter.com/hak5

____________________________________________



Founded in 2005, Hak5's mission is to advance the InfoSec industry. We do this through our award winning educational podcasts, leading pentest gear, and inclusive community – where all hackers belong.



Codeberg: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:34:16 +0200
The Codeberg forge has adopted a pair of new policies, promising not to use
hosted projects to train LLMs and, more controversially, banning the
hosting of LLM-generated software.  The site's blog describes
and justifies these policies.


	Although often well intentioned, sharing the result of a prompt
	and calling it "libre software" does not make the world a better
	place. Codeberg is not and does not want to be a place to dump such
	generated single-use software that no one else will ever look
	at. We are a place for people to collaborate and improve software
	together. Within this context, the recent votes can be understood
	as a reconfirmation of those principles: As we want to center on
	human collaboration, we will not actively support or engage in the
	creation of LLMs and will not put our limited resources to use for
	storing single-use software that would pollute our FLOSS commons.



How attackers hosted a fake Claude download page on the claude.ai domain
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:28:23 +0200
A threat actor abused Anthropic’s Claude Artifacts feature to funnel users toward malware, Huntress researchers have disclosed. Employees at at least 29 organizations were compromised over two days in July, after searching for the Claude desktop app and clicking a sponsored Bing ad. The ad pointed to the genuine claude.ai domain, but landed on an attacker-published public artifact, which redirected them to a spoofed download site serving SectopRAT. What are Claude Artifacts? Artifacts are a … More →
The post How attackers hosted a fake Claude download page on the claude.ai domain appeared first on Help Net Security.


A malicious Chrome extension for Adobe Acrobat could let hackers access private WhatsApp chats
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:20:53 +0200
Researchers find a universal cross-site scripting-class cross-origin data disclosure vulnerability in a popular Chrome extension.


Tech layoffs: A 2026 timeline
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:35:03 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



According to data compiled by Layoffs.fyi, an online tracker that keep tabs on job losses in the technology sector, 123,941 tech employees were laid off at 269 companies in 2025. The site also reports that 71,981 government employees were laid off by DOGE alone, with 182,528 total federal workers laid off.



Here is a list — to be updated regularly — of some of the most prominent technology layoffs the industry has experienced recently.



Notable tech layoffs in 2026




Monday.com



Microsoft



Meta



Cisco



Cloudflare



Oracle



Atlassian 



Salesforce



Amazon



Ericsson




July 22, 2026: Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era



The company says the decision to cut 620 jobs isn’t about margins, but about creating a flatter organization built around AI agents, autonomous teams, and deeper customer engagement.



July 6, 2026: Microsoft cuts 4,800 jobs, primarily in sales and Xbox teams



As the company trims thousands of jobs, it’s also investing in embedded engineering teams and AI infrastructure. The layoffs come several weeks after the company offered 8,750 US employees voluntary retirement buyouts.



June 5, 2026: Tech industry cut 38,242 jobs in May, worst since 2024



AI was blamed for 40% of the job cuts in May, up from 7% in January, according to research by employment placement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas.



May 20, 2026: Meta cuts 8,000 jobs, around 10% of workforce



The cuts are expected to expected to hit Meta’s engineering and product teams the hardest, arriving as Meta pivots toward AI to boost efficiency across its organization, according to Yahoo Tech.



May 13, 2026: Cisco to cut nearly 4,000 jobs despite strong growth in AI, enterprise networking



Despite reporting positive financial news — including record third-quarter revenue of $15.8 billion, a 12% year-over-year increase — Cisco said it will eliminate almost 4,000 jobs.



May 7, 2026: Cloudflare to cut 1,100 jobs in AI-focused restructuring



About 20% of Cloudflare’s global workforce will be culled as the company pivots for the agentic AI era, Reuters reported.



April 1, 2026: Oracle to cut up to 30,000 jobs globally, putting enterprise support and roadmaps at risk



Oracle began laying off employees on March 31 in what could be the largest workforce reduction in the company’s history. Employees received termination emails at 6 a.m. local time with immediate system lockouts and no prior warning. (Note: in June, CNBC put the final layoff tally at 21,000.)



March 12, 2026: Atlassian cuts 1,600 jobs to fund AI and enterprise expansion



Atlassian will reduce its global workforce by approximately 10%, eliminating around 1,600 roles, as the collaboration software maker redirects capital toward artificial intelligence development and enterprise sales.



March 11, 2026: Tech layoffs surpass 45,000 in early 2026



A recent analysis by RationalFX found 45,363 job cuts globally so far this year—with roughly 68% or more than 30,000 occurring in the U.S. — highlighting ongoing workforce cuts even as many tech companies report strong revenue growth.



February 10, 2026: Salesforce lays off staffers as executive leadership churn continues



Salesforce has reduced close to 1,000 roles earlier this month across teams, including marketing, product management, data analytics, and its Agentforce AI unit, Business Insider reported, quoting employees familiar with the matter.



January 23, 2026: Amazon layoffs expected to disproportionately hit AWS and tech talent



As the market slows down, AWS and other Amazon units are preparing for another round of layoffs, which is expected to overwhelmingly impact tech talent. An email from HR leader Beth Galetti on Jan. 28 confirmed 16,000 job cuts.



January 15, 2026: Ericsson plans to shed 1,600 jobs in Sweden



 Ericsson lans to cut some 1,600 jobs in Sweden, the telecommunications equipment maker said doubling down on recent cost-saving measures that have helped it weather a prolonged downturn in telecoms spending, Reuters reports.



January 13, 2026: Meta plans to cut around 10% of employees in Reality Labs business



Meta plans to cut around 10% of the employees in its Reality Labs division who work on products including the metaverse, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions, according to The New York Times.



Layoffs in 2025




Cisco



Oracle



Windsurf



Intel



Microsoft



Crowdstrike



HPE



Autodesk



HPE



CISA



Workday



Salesforce



Meta




Global tech-sector layoffs surpass 244,000 in 2025



Economic uncertainty, elevated interest rates, and AI adoption have driven workforce reductions across tech companies worldwide, according to a RationalFX report.



October 28, 2025: Amazon to cut 14,000 jobs across company



Amazon will reduce its overall workforce by 14,000, cutting layers of management across the company and hiring in some areas to support its “biggest bets”.



August 18, 2025: Cisco and Oracle to cut hundreds of Bay Area jobs



Tech companies Cisco and Oracle are cutting hundreds of jobs across the Bay Area. Cisco will eliminate 221 positions at its Milpitas and San Francisco offices, effective Oct. 13. Oracle is reducing 101 positions in Santa Clara on the same date 



August 5, 2025: 3 weeks after acquiring Windsurf, Cognition offers staff the exit door



Cognition, the AI coding startup that acquired rival company Windsurf three weeks ago, laid off 30 employees last week and is offering buyouts to the roughly 200 remaining employees on the team, reports The Information.



July 25, 2025, Intel to lay off 22% of workforce, CEO Tan signals ‘no more blank checks’



Intel will reduce its workforce to 75,000 employees by the end of 2025 as new CEO Lip-Bu Tan implements sweeping changes designed to transform the struggling chipmaker



July 8, 2025, Intel layoffs begin: Chipmaker is cutting many thousands of jobs



Intel has begun laying off employees across the company. CEO Lip-Bu Tan told workers back in April to expect major layoffs at Intel in the coming months as the chipmaker slashes costs and overhauls its organization after years of technical setbacks and falling sales. 



July 2, 2025: Microsoft will cut 9,000 workers



Microsoft will lay off about 9,000 employees, a source familiar with the workforce cut told CNBC.  The cuts will reportedly affect less than 4% of Microsoft’s global workforce and will impact different teams, geographies and levels of experience. This is the latest in a string of cuts the tech giant has made this year.



June 17, 2025: Intel looks to factory layoffs to return to profitability



Intel will lay off up to 20% of its manufacturing sector employees starting in July,  according to media reports, as the company looks for options as it seeks a return to profitability. The cuts reportedly will be made around the world, but some of the layoffs will be closer to home, according to a report in The Oregonian citing an internal company memo from Intel manufacturing Vice President Naga Chandrasekaran.



May 7, 2025: CrowdStrike to lay off 5% of staff



CrowdStrike announced a plan to cut about 500 roles, roughly 5% of its workforce, to streamline operations and reduce costs. The cybersecurity company will incur about $36 million to $53 million in charges related to the layoffs



March 6, 2025: HPE cuts 2,500 jobs, remains committed to Juniper buy



CEO Antonio Neri told Wall Street analysts that HPE would begin implementing a cost-cutting program involving layoffs of about 2,500 employees over the next 18 months. HPE employs about 61,000 people worldwide.



Feb. 27, 2025: Autodesk to lay off 9% of workforce



Software maker Autodesk is laying off 1,350 staff. With the rise of subscription and multi-year contracts billed annually, and self-service enablement, it finds it needs fewer sales staff, CEO Andrew Anagnost said in a message to employees. And with its cloud, platform, and AI products proving most profitable, it’s concentrating its staff and investments there. 



Feb. 27, 2025: HP to lay off 2,000 more



As part of an ongoing restructuring, HP plans to lay off up to another 2,000 workers. In recent weeks, the company has tried — unsuccessfully — to do away with telephone support staff by forcing callers to wait for at least 15 minutes if they refuse to use self-service support resources online. The company swiftly backtracked, but wider job cuts are still on. 



Feb. 21, 2025: CISA lays off 130



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



Feb. 5, 2025: Workday lays off 1,750



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



Feb. 4, 2025: Salesforce lays off over 1,000



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



Jan. 14, 2025: Meta will lay off 5% of workforce



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



Tech layoffs in 2024




Equinix



AMD



Freshworks



Cisco



General Motors



Intel



OpenText



Microsoft



AWS



Dell




Nov. 26, 2024: Equinix to cut 3% of staff



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



Nov. 13, 2024: AMD to cut 4% of workforce



AMD will lay off around 1,000 employees as it pivots towards developing AI-focused chips, it said. The move came as a surprise to staff, as the company also reported strong quarterly earnings. 



Nov. 7, 2024: Freshworks lays off 660



Enterprise software vendor Freshworks laid off around 660 staff, or around 13% of its headcount, despite reporting increased revenue and profits in its fourth fiscal quarter. The company described the layoffs as a realignment of its global workforce.



Sept. 17, 2024: Cisco lays off 6,000



After laying off around 4,200 staff in February, Cisco is at it again, laying off another 6,000 or around 7% of its workforce. Among the divisions affected were its threat intelligence unit, Talos Security. 



Aug. 20, 2024: General Motors lays off 1,000 software staff



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



August 1, 2024: Intel removes 15,000 roles



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



July 4, 2024: OpenText to lay off 1,200



OpenText said it will lay off 1,200 staff, or about 1.7% of its workforce, in a bid to save around $100 million annually. It plans to hire new sales and engineering staff in other areas in 2025, it said.



June 4, 2024: Microsoft lays off staff in Azure division



Microsoft laid off staff in several teams supporting its cloud services, including Azure for Operations and Mission Engineering. The company didn’t say exactly how many staff were leaving.



April 4, 2024: Amazon downsizes AWS in a fresh cost-cutting round



Amazon announced hundreds of layoffs in the sales and marketing teams of its AWS cloud services division — and also in the technology development teams for its physical retail stores, as it stepped back from efforts to generalize the “Just Walk Out” technology built for its Amazon Fresh grocery stores. 



April 1, 2024: Dell acknowledges 13,000 job cuts



Dell Technologies’ latest 10K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that the company had laid off 13,000 employees over the course of the 2023 fiscal year; it characterized the layoffs and other reorganizational moves as cost-cutting measures. “These actions resulted in a reduction in our overall headcount,” the company said. A comparison to the previous year’s 10K filing, performed by The Register, found that Dell employed 133,000 people at that point, compared to 120,000 as of February 2024. Dell announced layoffs of 6,650 staffers on Feb. 6, but it is unclear whether those cuts were reflected in the numbers from this year’s 10K statement.



See news of earlier layoffs.







CVE-2022-3968 | emlog admin/article_save.php day cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43300)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:35:18 +0200
A vulnerability was found in emlog and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file admin/article_save.php. The manipulation of the argument day results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2022-3968. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.


CVE-2026-7232 | FormCraft Plugin up to 3.9.14 on WordPress Input Sanitization formcraft-main.php html_entity_decode cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-47878)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:03:54 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in FormCraft Plugin up to 3.9.14 on WordPress. This impacts the function html_entity_decode of the file formcraft-main.php of the component Input Sanitization. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-7232. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.


CVE-2026-7534 | FantasticPlugins SUMO Reward Points Plugin up to 32.7.0 on WordPress REST API Endpoint/Admin Pages earning Reason cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-47877)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:03:51 +0200
A vulnerability was found in FantasticPlugins SUMO Reward Points Plugin up to 32.7.0 on WordPress. It has been classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is the function SRP_REST_Earning_Controller.create_items/SRP_Master_Log.column_default of the file /wp-json/wc-srp/v1/earning of the component REST API Endpoint/Admin Pages. This manipulation of the argument Reason causes cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2026-7534. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.


CVE-2026-9066 | WP Compress Plugin up to 7.10.3 on WordPress cross site scripting (EUVD-2026-47886)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:03:49 +0200
A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in WP Compress Plugin up to 7.10.3 on WordPress. The affected element is an unknown function. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-9066. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

The affected component should be upgraded.


[NEU] [mittel] RabbitMQ: Mehrere Schwachstellen
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:43:22 +0200
Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in RabbitMQ ausnutzen, um Denial-of-Service-Angriffe durchzuführen, Autorisierungs- und Mandantengrenzen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen und Cross Site Scripting Angriffe durchzuführen.


[NEU] [mittel] IBM App Connect Enterprise: Mehrere Schwachstellen
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:43:17 +0200
Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in IBM App Connect Enterprise ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen, um Informationen offenzulegen, um Dateien zu manipulieren, um einen Cross-Site Scripting Angriff durchzuführen, und um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen.


CVE-2022-3963 | gnuboard5 5.3.1.6/5.3.1.9/5.3.2.0 FAQ Key ID bbs/faq.php fm_id cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43295)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:29:03 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in gnuboard5 5.3.1.6/5.3.1.9/5.3.2.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file bbs/faq.php of the component FAQ Key ID Handler. The manipulation of the argument fm_id leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2022-3963. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


[NEU] [hoch] Mitel OpenScape: Schwachstelle ermöglicht Cross-Site Scripting
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:26:34 +0200
Ein entfernter, authentisierter Angreifer kann eine Schwachstelle in Mitel OpenScape ausnutzen, um einen Cross-Site Scripting Angriff durchzuführen.


Principles every enterprise must test before the attack arrives
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:04:32 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



This wasn’t ransomware. There was no negotiation, no decryption key to buy, no easy way out. It was destruction — deliberate, coordinated and geopolitically motivated — not monetary.



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



Recovery is not just a technical exercise



The first assumption to break during a real crisis is the belief that recovery is purely technical.



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



The reality is that technical infrastructure almost always holds up better than human infrastructure. Organizations have built their recovery strategy around the assumption that someone competent will be awake, available and empowered when a cyber event happens.



Still, backups are only as good as their independence. Let’s be blunt: If your recovery infrastructure shares identity, authentication or network trust with your Microsoft tenant (such as Azure, Microsoft 365 or Teams), you don’t actually have a recovery plan; you have a false sense of one — and a liability. A recent survey found that while 90% of organizations express confidence in their ability to recover from a cyber incident, fewer than one in three ransomware victims fully recovered their data.



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



Most business continuity plans ignore ‘total blackout’



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



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



This is also where boards need to change the conversation. A study found that only 5% of companies have cybersecurity experts on their board of directors. Recovery time objectives (RTOs) should not be buried in technical appendices. It’s all jargon to boards. That makes translation essential. RTOs must be explained in terms of business impact. “We can recover in four hours” is a technical statement. “Every hour of downtime costs us $2.3M and creates regulatory exposure in three jurisdictions” is a board statement.



That is the level of clarity leaders need.



The most prepared organizations do not wait for an incident to educate the board. They bring the conversation forward proactively. They frame recovery in business terms: revenue, regulatory standing, customer trust and brand reputation.



The most effective framing is often simple. Show the most critical systems. Show what happens if each one is down for one hour, four hours, 24 hours and 72 hours. Show the current recovery capability against each and then show the gap.



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



Threat intelligence must be actionable, not archived



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



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



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



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



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



Let’s not wait for the next headline to ask, “Are we ready?” Have those conversations now. Test your assumptions. Close your gaps. Because in today’s threat landscape, resilience isn’t IT’s job — it’s everyone’s mandate.



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



[NEU] [hoch] Google Cloud Platform: Schwachstelle ermöglicht Cross-Site Scripting
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:14:09 +0200
Ein Angreifer kann eine Schwachstelle in Google Cloud Platform ausnutzen, um einen Cross-Site Scripting Angriff durchzuführen.


CVE-2026-16349 | Mozilla Firefox up to 115.37/140.12/152 Navigation cross-domain policy (Nessus ID 329091)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:57:53 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Mozilla Firefox up to 115.37/140.12/152. It has been declared as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Navigation. Executing a manipulation can lead to permissive cross-domain policy with untrusted domains.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-16349. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


[NEU] [mittel] Drupal Module: Mehrere Schwachstellen
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:56:29 +0200
Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Drupal ausnutzen, um einen Cross-Site Scripting Angriff durchzuführen, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen und weitere, nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen.


VW ID Cross startet: Volkswagen will 36.525 Euro dafür haben
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:33:40 +0200

Volkswagen ist aktuell sehr zufrieden mit den günstigen Elektroautos, aber ein Modell fehlt noch, der VW ID Cross, der vor ein paar Tagen gezeigt wurde. Dieser soll bei 28.000 Euro …


Microsoft’s 3-day patching directive comes with added operational risk
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:10:44 +0200

		
					  
						




Microsoft 365 Director Jeremy Chapman this month took to video to tell Windows admins that the days of delaying security patches are over.



Complex enterprise systems and historic incidents involving patch problems have caused many admins to hold fire on immediately applying security patches, in many cases deferring patch rollouts for two to four weeks or more to ensure stability. Microsoft argues that this cautious approach, though understandable, is no longer viable because AI is accelerating the discovery and exploitation of software vulnerabilities.



As a result, Microsoft has advised admins to act on patches within three days.



Independent experts agree with Microsoft’s diagnosis of the problems posed by AI-powered vulnerability discovery, but many say Microsoft’s three-day remediation window is unrealistic for large enterprises with heavy testing, change-control, and compatibility constraints.



Instead of taking a blanket approach, enterprises need to focus more on quickly resolving those vulnerabilities that are under active exploitation and relevant to their environments, according to critics of Microsoft’s revised approach.



Tighter patching deadlines



Microsoft’s revised vulnerability remediation advice comes in the wake of its work with Anthropic’s Project Glasswing and findings from Microsoft’s own MDASH multi-model agentic scanning harness. Tighter patching deadlines are configurable via Windows Autopatch and Microsoft Intune or update tooling options such as Microsoft Configuration Manager and Windows Server Update Services.



As IT environments become increasingly more complex, inadvertent issues can occur with what appears to be a simple patch.



Unique or complex deployments may not be compatible with a patch, resulting in potential data corruption, system shutdown, or the dreaded “Blue Screen of Death.” Multiple vendors in the operating system and the enterprise software and security market have released patches that have broken products and caused outages, so the issue goes well beyond Windows shops.



Increasing both the volume and the speed of patching is unsustainable for most security teams because organizations are already struggling with successful remediation as it is.



“Many organizations have patch windows, review cycles, and test environments to identify these issues prior to patching production environments,” says Scott Caveza, senior research manager at exposure management and vulnerability assessment firm Tenable. “Organizations lacking the resources for extended validation risk deploying faulty patches that cause downtime or force last-minute configuration changes.”



Caveza adds: “The mitigation steps will vary for each organization, but blindly relying on auto-updates without contextual validation is not a defensible security posture.”



CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list and other industry data suggest that only a small fraction of disclosed vulnerabilities are confirmed as exploited in the wild.



“[Enterprises should focus on] identifying vulnerabilities with credible and functional PoCs, verified exploitation, or sustained attention from ransomware groups, threat actors, and botnets,” says Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck. “Timely exploit intelligence helps organizations identify the bugs that require immediate attention, while allowing lower-risk issues to proceed through appropriate testing and change control.”



Other independent experts are more sympathetic to Microsoft’s argument that AI has made vulnerability discovery and exploit development faster than ever and, as a result, the risks of delaying patches are far greater.



“Organizations sometimes delay patches to protect the uptime of critical systems, and many updates still require a restart,” says Danny Jenkins, CEO and co-founder at endpoint protection technology vendor ThreatLocker. “Some teams also stay one update cycle behind because they are concerned that a new patch could introduce bugs or break an overlooked dependency. Unfortunately, delaying patches to preserve uptime is becoming much harder to justify.”

Jenkins adds: “Organizations should not leave critical systems exposed while waiting for the next maintenance window. Patches should still be tested, but that process needs to move quickly, with the highest priority given to vulnerabilities that are actively exploited or exposed to the internet. A controlled interruption is usually far less costly than a successful attack exploiting a known vulnerability.”



Wider cross-industry impact



Microsoft’s three-day recommendation reflects a fundamental change in the threat landscape. Other vendors might be expected to follow suit and that means CISOs need to revise their approach to vulnerability remediation.



“Organizations should expect faster disclosure-to-exploitation timelines to become the norm, which means security programs must emphasize automation, trusted software supply chains, and continuous visibility rather than relying on periodic maintenance windows,” says Mike Nelson, VP and field CTO at DigiCert.



AI is compressing the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation, and the industry is moving rapidly from 30-, 60-, and 90-day patching windows toward a matter of days.



However a “blanket three-day requirement for every vulnerability is neither realistic nor safe for most large organizations,” says Jeff Williams, founder and CTO at Contrast Security.



Failing to patch opens up security threats, but rushing an inadequately tested patch into production creates operational risk.



“The goal cannot be to treat every CVE [vulnerability] as an emergency,” according to Williams. “It has to be identifying, within hours, which vulnerabilities are actually exploitable and require immediate action.”



Holistic remediation



Security teams are already facing significant pressure to patch faster and to remediate a rising tide of new vulnerabilities, yet many practitioners are losing ground. Verizon’s Data Breach Investigation Report, published earlier this year, found that the median time to patch had actually increased to 43 days.



Patch deployment in enterprise environments involves configuration changes, reviews, testing, and validation.



Enterprises need to become more proficient at exposure management so that they have a holistic view of their environment that’s necessary to identify which assets are at greatest risk.



“By pinpointing the misconfigurations, identity flaws, and specific vulnerabilities that pose the greatest risk to their environment, security teams can prioritize exactly what to patch first,” Tenable’s Caveza says. “The idea of ‘patch everything’ is really outdated, and ‘patch faster’ isn’t feasible with the rapidly increasing number of vulnerabilities disclosed each day.”



CISOs will have to re-engineer their vulnerability and exposure management processes. “The traditional model of scanning everything, assigning generic severity scores, and tilting at a massive and expanding backlog is no longer fast enough,” says Contrast Security’s Williams.



Organizations need to identify the small number of vulnerabilities that matter, protect against them immediately, and remediate them on a timeline the business can safely support.



Enterprises should prioritize on resolving “internet facing, remotely exploitable vulnerabilities and any of the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability list,” says Jose Lejin, an IEEE senior member.



Businesses that cannot safely validate and deploy patches within three days still have options, including “compensating controls, reducing an asset’s exposure, or in some cases removing the component entirely, all of which shrink the exploitable risk and buy time to patch properly,” says Brad Hibbert, CSO of vulnerability management provider Brinqa.



CVE-2026-15080 | Drupal Ray Enterprise Translation up to 4.0.3/4.1.3/11.0.3 cross-site request forgery (WID-SEC-2026-2251)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:19:00 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Drupal Ray Enterprise Translation up to 4.0.3/4.1.3/11.0.3 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Translation. Such manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-15080. The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-15082 | Drupal Siteimprove Analytics up to 2.0.0 cross site scripting (WID-SEC-2026-2251)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:18:38 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Drupal Siteimprove Analytics up to 2.0.0. It has been classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality. Performing a manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-15082. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

Upgrading the affected component is recommended.


CVE-2026-15084 | Drupal up to 2.0.17 UI Patterns cross site scripting (WID-SEC-2026-2251)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:18:36 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Drupal up to 2.0.17. It has been declared as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the component UI Patterns. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-15084. The attack may be performed from remote. There is no available exploit.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


This Week In Rust: This Week in Rust 661
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:18:12 +0200
Hello and welcome to another issue of This Week in Rust!
Rust is a programming language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
This is a weekly summary of its progress and community.
Want something mentioned? Tag us at
@thisweekinrust.bsky.social on Bluesky or
@ThisWeekinRust on mastodon.social, or
send us a pull request.
Want to get involved? We love contributions.
This Week in Rust is openly developed on GitHub and archives can be viewed at this-week-in-rust.org.
If you find any errors in this week's issue, please submit a PR.
Want TWIR in your inbox? Subscribe here.
Updates from Rust Community


Official

Announcing Rust 1.97.1

Newsletters

The Embedded Rustacean Issue #76

Project/Tooling Updates

Announcing Topcoat: a framework for building full-stack reactive web apps with Rust
Syn 3.0.0
What’s New in RustRover 2026.2
kobe 0.35.0: readiness gates and cert recycling
Comhad v0.1.0: a ranger-style tui cyberduck replacement for browsing S3
Nova v0.2.1: computer-use MCP server
winit now has comprehensive cross-platform drag-and-drop support, exposing most of the power of the underlying OS APIs
crimson-crab v0.1.0 - a production-grade Rust SDK for the Claude API (streaming, tool use, prompt caching, batches)
ferrovec: dependency-light HNSW vector search in Rust, compiled to WebAssembly for private in-browser semantic search
OrdoFP 0.1.0 released — a functional-programming toolbelt for Rust (HList, GAT type classes, optics, effects, monad transformers)
Freya 0.4
buildline: merging cargo and ninja's build profiling into one timeline
cochlea 0.3.0: melody read-back, MFCC timbre, a master limiter, and MIDI import for the deterministic agent-audio engine
flodl 0.6.0: multi-host heterogeneous DDP - mismatched GPUs across hosts beat the fastest card alone
hwatu: a daemon-based WebKitGTK browser for tiling WMs with ~13ms window spawn
kache 0.11.0: broader compiler coverage and libc-aware keys
tracing-reload - reload layer without panics
Introducing OpenTypeless: Voice Input That Actually Works
Reading a Rust crate's capabilities out of its compiled symbols

Observations/Thoughts

Battery packs: Let's talk about crates, baby
Capture Clauses as Effects
Hardening Rust Code For Production
Tokio Gives Progress, Not Ordering: Scheduling 1M Tasks
Rust service hardening and production checklist
[audio] The Rust Foundation with Rebecca Rumbul, Lori Lorusso, and David Wood, Rust Foundation leadership and board
[video] Jon Gjengset: Open Source Maintenance 2026-07-18
[video] Rust Release Changelog - 1.97.0
[video] Livestream: Rust in Ubuntu

Rust Walkthroughs

I hash-chained my agent's audit log. Then I found 13 breaks in it — all mine, all benign.
Two tricky bugs in a Rust daemon
[video] Backend Concepts in Rust: Securely Managing App Secrets
[video] Build with Naz - Ep 21: High Performance Flat 2D Arrays in Rust (SIMD, L1 cache)

Crate of the Week
This week's crate is xan, a TUI toolkit to work with CSV files.
Thanks to Simeon H.K. Fitch for the suggestion!
Please submit your suggestions and votes for next week!
Calls for Testing
An important step for RFC implementation is for people to experiment with the
implementation and give feedback, especially before stabilization.
If you are a feature implementer and would like your RFC to appear in this list, add a
call-for-testing label to your RFC along with a comment providing testing instructions and/or
guidance on which aspect(s) of the feature need testing.
No calls for testing were issued this week by
Rust,
Cargo,
Rustup or
Rust language RFCs.
Let us know if you would like your feature to be tracked as a part of this list.
Call for Participation; projects and speakers
CFP - Projects
Always wanted to contribute to open-source projects but did not know where to start?
Every week we highlight some tasks from the Rust community for you to pick and get started!
Some of these tasks may also have mentors available, visit the task page for more information.




No Calls for participation were submitted this week.

If you are a Rust project owner and are looking for contributors, please submit tasks here or through a PR to TWiR or by reaching out on Bluesky or Mastodon!
CFP - Events
Are you a new or experienced speaker looking for a place to share something cool? This section highlights events that are being planned and are accepting submissions to join their event as a speaker.



No Calls for papers or presentations were submitted this week.

If you are an event organizer hoping to expand the reach of your event, please submit a link to the website through a PR to TWiR or by reaching out on Bluesky or Mastodon!
Updates from the Rust Project
576 pull requests were merged in the last week
Compiler

account for async closures when pointing at lifetime in return type
comptime inherent impls
dep_graph: deduplicate task reads with an epoch-filtered index recorder
eagerly check for ambiguity in macro parsing
implement #[diagnostic::opaque] attribute to hide backtraces of macros
shrink ast::Expr64

Library

add explicit Iterator::count impl for str::EncodeUtf16
implement bool::toggle
implement const_binary_search
implement Debug helpers via Cell
implement VecDeque::truncate_to_range
make pin!() more foolproof
move std::io::BufRead to alloc::io
move std::io::Read to alloc::io
move std::io::read_to_string to alloc::io

Cargo

use PGO for Cargo
timings: only report units the job queue actually ran
do not include proc-macro deps in rustc search path args
include SBOM outputs in fingerprints
lazily initialize git2 fetch transports

Rustdoc

fix auto trait normalization env
use PGO for rustdoc

Clippy

add block_scrutinee lint
avoid invalid ref_as_ptr suggestions in const/static initializers
detect == 0 on unsigned types as a manual_clamp lower bound
fix if_not_else linting on macro expanded conditions
fix needless_collect suggests a suggestion that cannot be typed
non_zero_suggestions: don't lint signed integer div/rem as NonZero
manual_filter: don't eat comments in the and_then suggestion
require the use of as _ for indirectly used traits in clippy sources
rewrite min_ident_chars
use #[must_use] determination from the compiler

Rust-Analyzer

avoid index panic when flycheck list is empty
add capture hints to coroutines
add handler for E0572
do not assume array destructuring assignments with rest pattern are constant-sized
eagerly normalize .await's IntoFuture::Output
enable auto trait inference
extract variable preserving whitespace from macro input
fix coroutines not recording binding owners correctly
fix crashes in assists due to .unwrap() calls in SyntaxFactory
fix hir crate leaking bound variables from skipped binders
fix InferenceContext:identity_args using the wrong DefId
fix syntax bridge panic when spilting float
handle enum variants in next-solver generics
implement lowering of HRTB
invalid pattern_matching_variant lowering due to recovery
merge WherePredicate::ForLifetimes into WherePredicate::TypeBound
only write anon const ty in parent's inference result if it doesn't have its own inference
panic with a function item and a proc macro item having a duplicate name
parser to error on macro type bound
spawn proc-macro servers on requests clearing the client cache
use quote! inside ast::make::expr_call()
use Result for the lsp-server Response payload type
record expressions in types in ExprScope

Rust Compiler Performance Triage
The two most notable changes this week were #159115,
which resulted in pretty nice instruction count wins for full incremental builds on several benchmarks,
and #159091, which enabled PGO for rustdoc, which
makes it ~3-4% faster across the board.
There were two large rollups with tiny performance regressions, which made it difficult to find
the offending PRs.
Triage done by @Kobzol.
Revision range: 5503df87..d527bc9b
Summary:



(instructions:u)
mean
range
count




Regressions ❌ 
 (primary)
0.4%
[0.2%, 1.0%]
40


Regressions ❌ 
 (secondary)
0.7%
[0.2%, 4.6%]
69


Improvements ✅ 
 (primary)
-2.0%
[-6.2%, -0.2%]
136


Improvements ✅ 
 (secondary)
-2.6%
[-8.4%, -0.2%]
119


All ❌✅ (primary)
-1.4%
[-6.2%, 1.0%]
176



2 Regressions, 3 Improvements, 6 Mixed; 4 of them in rollups
34 artifact comparisons made in total
Full report here.
Approved RFCs
Changes to Rust follow the Rust RFC (request for comments) process. These
are the RFCs that were approved for implementation this week:

No RFCs were approved this week.

Final Comment Period
Every week, the team announces the 'final comment period' for RFCs and key PRs
which are reaching a decision. Express your opinions now.
Tracking Issues & PRs
Rust

Tracking Issue for bool::toggle
Tracking Issue for vec_try_remove
Avoid computing layout of enums with non-int discriminants
Tracking Issue for const_btree_len
Add raw_borrows_via_references lint
stabilize size_of_val_raw, align_of_val_raw, Layout::for_value_raw
rustc_passes: lint unused #[path] attributes on inline modules

Compiler Team (MCPs only)

Emit note when calling rustc without specifying an edition
Let the OS handle stack growth
Add target_feature_available_at_call_site

Leadership Council

Deallocate post-2026 funds from PM and compiler-ops

Unsafe Code Guidelines

Do the bytes of a pointer have to stay in the same order?

No Items entered Final Comment Period this week for
  Cargo,
  Language Reference,
  Language Team or
  Rust RFCs.
Let us know if you would like your PRs, Tracking Issues or RFCs to be tracked as a part of this list.
New and Updated RFCs

RFC: Refactor the libs team

Upcoming Events
Rusty Events between 2026-07-22 - 2026-08-19 🦀
Virtual

2026-07-24 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session


2026-07-28 | Virtual (Dallas, TX, US) | Dallas Rust User Meetup
Fourth Tuesday


2026-07-28 | Virtual (Washington, DC, US) | Rust DC
Mid-month Rustful


2026-07-30 | Virtual (Berlin, DE) | Rust Berlin
Rust Hack and Learn


2026-07-31 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session


2026-08-01 | Virtual (Kampala, UG) | Rust Circle Meetup
Rust Circle Meetup


2026-08-02 | Virtual (Dallas, TX, US) | Dallas Rust User Meetup
Rust Deep Learning: First Sunday


2026-08-04 | Virtual (London, UK) | Women in Rust
👋 Community Catch Up


2026-08-05 | Virtual (Indianapolis, IN, US) | Indy Rust
Indy.rs - with Social Distancing


2026-08-07 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session


2026-08-11 | Virtual (Dallas, TX, US) | Dallas Rust User Meetup
Second Tuesday


2026-08-13 | Virtual (Berlin, DE) | Rust Berlin
Rust Hack and Learn


2026-08-13 | Virtual (Nürnberg, DE) | Rust Nuremberg
Rust Nürnberg online


2026-08-14 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session


2026-08-18 | Virtual (Washington, DC, US) | Rust DC
Mid-month Rustful


2026-08-19 | Hybrid (Vancouver, BC, CA) | Vancouver Rust
Dealing with Dependencies



Africa

2026-08-11 | Johannesburg, ZA | Johannesburg Rust Meetup
Rust's extended standard library



Asia

2026-07-25 | Mumbai, IN | Rust Mumbai
Rust Mumbai — July Meetup 🦀


2026-07-26 | Pune, IN | Rust Pune
Rust Pune: July 2026



Europe

2026-07-23 | Berlin, DE | Rust Berlin
Rust Berlin Talks: The next generation


2026-07-23 | London, UK | Rust London User Group
LDN Talks: July 2026 Antithesis Takeover


2026-07-23 | London, UK | London Rust Project Group
Rama modular service framework for Rust


2026-07-23 | Paris, FR | Rust Paris
Rust meetup #87


2026-07-25 | Stockholm, SE | Stockholm Rust
Ferris' Fika Forum #28


2026-07-27 | Augsburg, DE | Rust Meetup Augsburg
Rust Meetup #20: Julian Dickert - Supply chain security in Rust: Evaluating crates for production


2026-07-29 | Poland, PL | Rust Poland
Rust Poland x Kraków #10


2026-07-30 | Copenhagen, DK | Copenhagen Rust Community
Rust meetup #70


2026-07-30 | Manchester, UK | Rust Manchester
Rust Manchester July Code Night


2026-08-18 | Aarhus, DK | Rust Aarhus
Hack Night: Trust but verify the LLM


2026-08-18 | Leipzig, DE | Rust - Modern Systems Programming in Leipzig
Topic TBD



North America

2026-07-22 | Austin, TX, US | Rust ATX
Rust Lunch - Fareground


2026-07-22 | Los Angeles, CA, US | Rust Los Angeles
Rust LA: Rust in Distributed Systems with Flight Science!


2026-07-22 | New York, NY, US | Rust NYC
Rust NYC: Write A Custom Coding Agent and wasm_zero


2026-07-23 | Mountain View, CA, US | Hacker Dojo
RUST MEETUP at HACKER DOJO


2026-07-25 | Boston, MA, US | Boston Rust Meetup
Porter Square Rust Lunch, July 25


2026-07-25 | Brooklyn, NY, US | Flower
BOG-A-THON 2


2026-07-30 | Atlanta, GA, US | Rust Atlanta
Rust-Atl


2026-08-01 | Boston, MA, US | Boston Rust Meetup
Chinatown Rust Lunch, Aug 1


2026-08-04 | Boston, MA, US | Boston Rust Meetup
Evening Boston Rust Meetup at Red Hat, Aug 4


2026-08-06 | Saint Louis, MO, US | STL Rust
Shipping Temporal: How a Global Rust Ecosystem Built Chrome’s Newest Web API


2026-08-13 | Lehi, UT, US | Utah Rust
Utah Rust August Meetup


2026-08-13 | San Diego, CA, US | San Diego Rust
San Diego Rust August Meetup - Back in person!


2026-08-15 | San Francisco, CA, US | Flower
BOG-A-THON 3


2026-08-18 | San Francisco, CA, US | San Francisco Rust Study Group
Rust Hacking in Person


2026-08-19 | Hybrid (Vancouver, BC, CA) | Vancouver Rust
Dealing with Dependencies



Oceania

2026-07-23 | Perth, AU | Rust Perth Meetup Group
Rust Perth: July Meetup!


2026-07-30 | Melbourne, AU | Rust Melbourne
Rust Melbourne July 2026



South America

2026-08-08 | São Paulo, SP | Rust-SP
Rust SP - Aug/2026



If you are running a Rust event please add it to the calendar to get
it mentioned here. Please remember to add a link to the event too.
Email the Rust Community Team for access.
Jobs
Please see the latest Who's Hiring thread on r/rust
Quote of the Week

We were planning on publishing a blog post announcing this at the same time as making the repo public, but ran out of private repo CI usage 😭.

– Carl Lerche on r/rust about the launch of topcoat
Despite a lamentable lack of suggestions, llogiq is glad to have found this quote.
Please submit quotes and vote for next week!
This Week in Rust is edited by:

nellshamrell
llogiq
ericseppanen
extrawurst
U007D
mariannegoldin
bdillo
opeolluwa
bnchi
KannanPalani57
tzilist

Email list hosting is sponsored by The Rust Foundation
Discuss on r/rust


The AI code vulnerabilities that grow with your app
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:16:19 +0200
Theori built 28 apps with AI coding agents and scanned each one through its pentesting platform. Five models did the building, split between Anthropic and OpenAI, across apps written from a spec, thrown together from a casual prompt, and rewritten from an aging PHP codebase. The team went in expecting injection everywhere. SQL injection, cross-site scripting, the bugs that fill security tutorials. Those barely showed up. The models reached for prepared statements and ORMs on … More →
The post The AI code vulnerabilities that grow with your app appeared first on Help Net Security.


G# language for .NET borrows from Go, Kotlin, and Swift
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 04:08:47 +0200

		
					  
						




G# (GSharp) is moving forward as a programming language for Microsoft’s .NET platform, touted as bringing Go-, Kotlin-, and Swift-style ergonomics to the CLR (Common Language Runtime). The language is described by its creators as modern, simple, and accessible.



Although pre-1.0 and still growing, G# aims to be for people who want a small, predictable language with direct access to the .NET ecosystem. Developers will see imports, func, structs, slices, maps, channels, go, select, and for in iteration. Also important are nullable flow, direct calls into the CLR (Common Language Runtime), and built-in concurrency. 



With G#, copyrighted in 2026, developers get value-oriented structs, reference-oriented classes, data structs, and data classes. For concurrency, G# uses scope for structured concurrency, async func and await for task-based asynchrony, and async sequence[T] for asynchronous streams. G# also makes use of the same Task and Task[T] types familiar from the .NET BCL (Base Class Library).



G# documentation is available on the GitHub site of Microsoft software engineer David Obando. “Every .NET type—your packages, third-party NuGet packages, the BCL—is callable from G# with the syntax you already know. CLR generics use G#’s bracket spelling, and method calls, properties, indexers, and for in over IEnumerable[T] all just work,” according to the website.



A Visual Studio Code extension for G3 can be found at marketplace.visualstudio.com. The extension adds syntax highlighting, language server features, build/run commands, and debugger configuration for .gs and .gsproj files. Developers can install the extension from within VS Code (search for “G#” in the Extensions view) or from the command line.



Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 03:02:52 +0200

		
					  
						




Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.



Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.



The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.



“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”



A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology



In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.



Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”



In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.



“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.



The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.



Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”



“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”



A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.



Monday.com’s key market advantages



Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.



“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”



Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.



While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”



Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.



“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”



But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.



Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.



“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.



Actions for the near-term



Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.



“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.



Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.



During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”



Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”



“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”



This article originally appeared on CIO.com.







Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:50:31 +0200

		
					  
						




Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.



Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.



The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.



“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”



A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology



In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.



Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”



In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.



“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.



The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.



Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”



“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”



A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.



Monday’s key market advantages



Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.



“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”



Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.



While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”



Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.



“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”



But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.



Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.



“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.



Actions for the near-term



Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.



“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.



Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.



During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”



Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”



“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”



CVE-2022-3949 | Sourcecodester Simple Cashiering System User Account fullname cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43283)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:12:08 +0200
A vulnerability labeled as problematic has been found in Sourcecodester Simple Cashiering System. Affected is an unknown function of the component User Account Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument fullname can lead to cross site scripting.

The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2022-3949. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.


CVE-2022-3950 | sanluan PublicCMS Tab dwz.min.js initLink cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43284)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:12:07 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in sanluan PublicCMS. Affected by this vulnerability is the function initLink of the file dwz.min.js of the component Tab Handler. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2022-3950. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.


Expose your site's actions to AI agents using WebMCP
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:19:26 +0200
Author: Google for Developers - Bewertung: 9x - Views:77 
Instead of forcing agents to interpret your UI, use WebMCP to expose what it can actually do! 



Resources: 

Learn more about WebMCP → https://goo.gle/4wdG9Af 



Subscribe to Google for Developers → https://goo.gle/developers 



Speaker: Sayali Godbole



CVE-2026-63265 | Regular Labs Advanced Module Manager AJAX Endpoints cross-site request forgery (EUVD-2026-47814)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:20:10 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Regular Labs Advanced Module Manager, Articles Anywhere, Articles Field, Better Frontend Link, Cache Cleaner, CDN for Joomla, Conditional Content, Content Templater, DB Replacer, Email Protector, Extension Manager, GeoIP, IP Login, Keyboard Shortcuts, Modals, Modules Anywhere, Quick Index, ReReplacer, Snippets, Sourcerer, Tooltips, Users Anywhere and What? Nothing!. It has been rated as problematic. Impacted is an unknown function of the component AJAX Endpoints. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-63265. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.


CVE-2026-63685 | regularlabs DB Replacer Plugin up to 8.2.7 Administrator Routes cross-site request forgery (EUVD-2026-47813)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:20:06 +0200
A vulnerability identified as problematic has been detected in regularlabs DB Replacer Plugin up to 8.2.7. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component Administrator Routes. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery.

This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2026-63685. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.


AI agents aren't confidently wrong because of bad context — they're wrong because of bad data engineering
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:18 +0200
You spend weeks tuning an AI chatbot. Answers are accurate. Stakeholders sign off, and you ship it. Three months later, the system is confidently wrong about a third of what users ask. Nobody changed the model, and nobody touched the prompts. The world moved, pricing changed, a policy updated, a product spec shipped a new version, and the underlying knowledge store didn't move with it.
This is not a hypothetical. It's one of the most common production failure modes in enterprise AI right now, and most data engineering teams don't have the right tooling to catch it, regardless of how the AI system retrieves the data.
The failure that doesn't look like a failure 
An AI application doesn't care whether it's retrieving from a vector store, a document index, or an API call. Whatever the mechanism, nothing in a standard retrieval pipeline checks whether what it's serving is still correct. A stale pricing document retrieves just as confidently as a current one, because the system is scoring relevance or availability, not correctness. A record with a silently missing field passes through just as cleanly as a complete one, for the same reason.
So the failure is invisible by design. Outdated or incomplete data still scores high on relevance, or passes every check a data pipeline was built to run. The model answers with full confidence because the retrieved context looks authoritative. Every dashboard you're watching stays green. The system looks like it's working. It's just wrong.
I’ve watched a similar version of this happen outside the AI context, in a fintech pipeline. An upstream system changed a field without notifying downstream users. The pipeline did not fail; it simply propagated bad values into dashboards because the system only checked whether the job completed, not whether the data was still correct. The issue surfaced only when a customer noticed something inconsistent. By then, the bad data had already moved downstream. 
Whether it's a document that's gone stale or a field that's gone silently missing, the failure shape is the same: the absence of an error is not the presence of correctness, and without building proper validation layers, nothing in the pipeline could identify the problem.
Why this is a data engineering problem
Teams that hit this failure tend to misdiagnose it, and they tend to do it twice.
Blaming the model: The first instinct is to blame the model, try a different LLM, adjust the prompt. The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer, the same instinct behind the fintech failure above: monitoring built for the pipeline, not the data.
Blaming the retrieval layer: Once the model's ruled out, the next instinct is to blame the retrieval or context layer instead and buy a better one. The timing isn't a coincidence: as enterprises push these systems into the real production world, this gap is exactly what's starting to surface, and the vendor response has been everywhere. 
AWS just entered the "context layer" race with a knowledge graph that learns from agent usage. 
Snowflake's new Horizon Context and Cortex Sense target the exact symptom this piece opened with: agents giving confident wrong answers because nothing governs the business logic underneath them. 
Both are real responses to a real problem, but they sit one layer above it; a knowledge graph still depends on whatever feeds it.
The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer. Teams check whether a job ran, not whether the data it moved is still true, an instinct that predates AI by years. Monitoring is built for the pipeline, not for the data. 
What's actually missing: Data observability
Data observability is a well-known concept that doesn't get enough attention in how it's actually implemented. The relevant metric isn't a percentage — it's coverage: what fraction of critical datasets have lineage that's actually queryable, versus only living in someone's head.
Uber built a dedicated data quality and observability platform long before retrieval-augmented generation existed. Their Unified Data Quality platform supports more than 2,000 critical datasets and detects around 90% of data quality incidents before they reach downstream consumers.
Netflix solved a different piece of the same problem, building a company-wide data lineage system so anyone could answer where a dataset came from and what touched it along the way. It maps dependencies across Kafka topics, ML models, and experimentation, not just warehouse tables. Similar to Uber, the platform was built for humans and now it has become more important with the rise in AI/LLM applications.
Between them, Uber and Netflix cover two of the four things worth building for. In practice, I think about it as four dimensions, each measurable on its own terms.
Correctness: Does each record conform to the shape and rules it's supposed to, right field types, no unexpected nulls, values in range. Tools like Great Expectations and Soda handle this well: automated row and column-level validation instead of manual checks after something breaks. Track percentage of records passing validation per run.
Freshness: Is the data still current relative to its source, not just current as of its last check. Track time since last successful update per source, with an SLA per dataset rather than one blanket threshold, since some sources need hourly refresh and others don't.
Consistency: Does the same fact read the same way everywhere it's stored or indexed. This fails silently, it only shows up when two systems fed by the same source start disagreeing. A periodic cross-check between downstream destinations, flagging mismatch rate above a threshold, is enough to catch it early.
Lineage: Can you trace any output back to its source and every transform it passed through, the same question Netflix built its system to answer. 
None of this requires infrastructure most data teams don't already have. I know because I've built it, not just argued for it.
At Socure, client data arrived in whatever shape the client felt like sending it, and occasionally, quietly wrong. The challenge was building a system where incorrect data could be identified before it propagated downstream. The same principles applied: Validate what arrived, understand where it came from, and prevent bad data from becoming someone else's problem.
Great Expectations became part of that foundation: schema and range validation at ingestion, per-source SLAs for freshness, cross-system checks for consistency, and file-level lineage. All of it sat behind a write-audit-publish pattern, where data landed in staging, was validated, and only moved downstream if it passed the required checks.
The result showed up downstream: better accuracy across the board, in reporting, in the ML models, and in AI retrieval built on top of that same data.
What to do Monday morning
If you're running retrieval-based AI systems in production, the diagnostic question isn't which model to try next or which retrieval architecture to migrate to. It's four narrower questions: 
Is the underlying data validated against the standards required by its consumers?
What's the oldest piece of content currently being served with high confidence?
Would two chunks of the same source ever disagree with each other in the same retrieval result?
Could you trace where it came from if it turned out to be wrong?
If you can't answer those questions, then the gap lies in the pipeline between your source systems and whatever your agent reads from. That’s a data engineering fix, not a model swap or a vendor migration.
Whether you're building reporting pipelines, ML systems, or AI agents, correctness, freshness, consistency, and lineage are what make data trustworthy. AI simply exposes weaknesses that have existed in data engineering all along. 


Critical Zimbra security update fixes 9 vulnerabilities
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:40:41 +0200

		
					  
						




Business email and collaboration suite Zimbra has received a major security update that fixes several critical issues that could allow attackers to execute malicious code on the server or in users’ browsers.



Available in commercial and open-source editions, Zimbra Collaboration Suite is a self-hosted Microsoft Exchange alternative that is popular with businesses, government entities, and educational institutions, which has made it a target for attackers in the past.



Version 10.1.20 released this week includes patches for nine vulnerabilities, including a permanent fix for a critical flaw announced in June in the SNMP monitoring component that could be exploited to inject commands when notifications are enabled.



The release also fixes four cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Classic Web Client that could allow attackers to execute malicious scripts when users view emails in the web interface. For example, one vulnerability can be triggered through specially crafted attachment filenames and another when users render an attachment.



XSS vulnerabilities are dangerous because they execute scripts in the user’s browser in the context of the page. That gives rogue code the same privileges as the user, enabling it to perform malicious actions, exfiltrate data, or even leak session cookies.



In 2025, an XSS vulnerability in the calendar import feature of the Zimbra Classic Web Client (CVE-2025-27915) was exploited in attacks targeting Brazilian military personnel. Many other Zimbra vulnerabilities have been exploited over the years, sometimes as zero-days, especially by Russian state-sponsored APT groups, such as Fancy Bear (APT28), Cozy Bear (APT29), and Winter Vivern (TA473).



A recent incident involved a Russian threat group targeting a Ukrainian critical infrastructure agency in March using specifically crafted emails that exploited a known Zimbra stored XXS vulnerability (CVE-2025-66376).



Another vulnerability fixed in the newly released Zimbra 10.1.20 could allow authenticated attackers to bypass email forwarding restrictions. Adding email forwarding rules to a compromised account is a common way to achieve persistence and continuously exfiltrate emails from a mailbox over an extended period of time, even if the account password is changed.



The release also fixes a security issue related to access controls in the EWS extension, an authorization issue in mailbox delegation, and a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Nextcloud integration. Nextcloud is another self-hosted collaboration suite that is popular with government and public institutions that don’t want to rely on public clouds.



It’s worth noting that this is the second Zimbra security update this month. Version 10.1.19, released on July 7, patched another unspecified security issue in the Classic Web Client that could run malicious code when specially crafted emails were opened by users.



Zimbra owner Synacor strongly advises customers to upgrade to the latest available version as soon as possible to keep their environments secure. While none of these flaws had zero-day status, hacker groups have a history for quickly adopting known Zimbra exploits.



New Alpha Release: Tor Browser 16.0a8
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:34:02 +0200

    
      


      
    
    Tor Browser 16.0a8 is now available from the Tor Browser download page and also from our distribution directory.
This version includes important security updates to Firefox.
⚠️ Reminder: The Tor Browser Alpha release-channel is for testing only. As such, Tor Browser Alpha is not intended for general use because it is more likely to include bugs affecting usability, security, and privacy.
Moreover, Tor Browser Alphas are now based on Firefox's betas. Please read more about this important change in the Future of Tor Browser Alpha blog post.
If you are an at-risk user, require strong anonymity, or just want a reliably-working browser, please stick with the stable release channel.
Send us your feedback
If you find a bug or have a suggestion for how we could improve this release, please let us know.
Full changelog
The full changelog since Tor Browser 16.0a7 is:

All Platforms
Updated NoScript to 13.6.25.90301984
Updated Tor to 0.4.9.11
Updated OpenSSL to 3.5.7
Bug tor-browser#44857: Drop browser.display.use_system_colors from our preference list
Bug tor-browser#44896: Review Mozilla 2030929: Remove unused pref privacy.partition.network_state
Bug tor-browser#45018: resistfingerprinting not available in appearance.mjs in 152
Bug tor-browser#45019: ReportBrokenSite startup error in 152
Bug tor-browser#45047: Cross-site oracle via worklet rejection error in Safer Mode
Bug tor-browser#45072: Disable XSLT already for 16.0


Windows + macOS + Linux
Updated Firefox to 152.0a1
Bug tor-browser#44528: Make sure desktop IP Protection is disabled on desktop
Bug tor-browser#44795: Revert BB 27604 patch as not needed anymore
Bug tor-browser#44844: Use new urlbar CSS variables
Bug tor-browser#44888: Use --button-opacity-disabled for disabled styling.
Bug tor-browser#44955: Use context-fill for about-wordmark.svg
Bug tor-browser#44956: Switch colours in letterboxing setting icons to match the tab-alignment icons
Bug tor-browser#45016: Several errors about EngineProcess.sys.mjs in 152
Bug tor-browser#45017: Wrong letterboxing background in 152
Bug tor-browser#45037: Potential runtime errors in the search service when changing JS status
Bug tor-browser#45043: Re-add missing changes to settings after 151/152 rebase
Bug tor-browser#45083: Error in about:preferences due to ipprotection missing


macOS
Bug tor-browser#44728: Bundled fonts are broken on macOS when the GPU process is enabled


Linux
Bug @ libfontconfig.so.1#45048: Backport Bugzilla 2041887: Crash in after users upgraded to fontconfig 2.18.0 [tor-browser]


Android
Updated GeckoView to 152.0a1
Bug tor-browser#43856: Fix onBackPressed() deprecation
Bug tor-browser#44091: Add frequent regions to tor connection assist for android
Bug tor-browser#44175: Remove all default browser functionality (Android)
Bug tor-browser#44769: TBA crash screen has firefox asset as well as a "Send crash report" button
Bug tor-browser#45052: Initialise Tor modules on android in the same order as desktop


Build System
All Platforms
Bug tor-browser-build#41802: Remove the tor daemon requirement for signing
Bug tor-browser-build#41809: Update toolchains for Firefox 152
Bug tor-browser-build#41813: Disable build artifacts in make generate_gradle_dependencies_list-geckoview
Bug tor-browser-build#41821: Update gpg subkeys for boklm
Bug tor-browser-build#41823: Add versions information to the toolchain list update
Bug tor-browser-build#41827: Update morgan's keychain with renewed key


Windows + Linux + Android
Updated Go to 1.26.4


Windows
Bug tor-browser-build#41810: Define GetAddrInfoExCancel on mingw


Android
Bug tor-browser#45086: Compress omni.ja with xz on Android
Bug tor-browser-build#41830: Update the browser project to change omni.ja.xz






    
  
    
        
          applications
        
      

        
          releases
        
      
  
  


iPhone 18 Pro Enters Mass Production, Apple Prepares for September Launch
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:38:13 +0200
Apple’s iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max have entered mass production as Foxconn increases hiring ahead of the expected September launch. The update suggests Apple has moved into the production ramp-up stage, with its assembly partner raising hourly pay and rehire bonuses to attract workers.



The Standard reports that Foxconn has started its busiest recruitment period as factories prepare for large-scale assembly and inventory building. At the Zhengzhou site, hourly wages have reached 27 yuan, while returning workers can receive bonuses of up to 7,500 yuan.




“Foxconn, Apple’s primary contract manufacturer, has entered its peak recruitment season as the iPhone 18 series enters mass production and ramps up capacity,” The Standard reported, citing supply chain sources quoted by mainland media.




iPhone 18 Pro upgrades expected this year



The iPhone 18 Pro is expected to feature a smaller Dynamic Island, reducing the cutout width from 20.76mm to 13.49mm. That change would cut the occupied area by about 35% and increase the screen-to-body ratio to roughly 94.7%, giving users more display space during games and video playback.



Apple is also expected to add the A20 Pro chip and a new main camera with variable aperture technology, which adjusts light intake based on shooting conditions. Reports also suggest the new model will be thicker and heavier, while Apple may again avoid black and dark gray colour options.



Apple is reportedly planning a staggered launch, with the Pro models arriving in September and the standard iPhone 18 following next year.


CVE-2022-3943 | ForU CMS cms_chip.php Name cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43277)
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:35:15 +0200
A vulnerability was found in ForU CMS. It has been classified as problematic. Impacted is an unknown function of the file cms_chip.php. The manipulation of the argument Name leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2022-3943. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. Furthermore, there is an exploit available.


CVE-2023-47821 | Jannis Thuemmig Email Encoder Plugin up to 2.1.8 on WordPress cross site scripting
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 19:13:37 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Jannis Thuemmig Email Encoder Plugin up to 2.1.8 on WordPress. It has been classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2023-47821. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.


Bluehost promises its new AI agents will deliver "a site or store that runs itself"
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:03:24 +0200
“AI shouldn’t stop at building a website,” says Bluehost CEO Sachin Puri

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

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

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

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

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

Title	Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure
Original Publication	April 7, 2026
Last Update	July 22, 2026
Executive Summary	The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.
Last Update Description	This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.
Affected Products	Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.
Key Actions	Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices. Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action. Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including `44818`, `2222`, `102`, and `502`, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers. For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.
Indicators of Compromise	For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see: AA26-097A STIX XML (July 2026) (29 KB) AA26-097A STIX JSON (July 2026) (30 KB) For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see: AA26-097A STIX XML (36 KB) AA26-097A STIX JSON (12 KB)
Intended Audience	Organizations: Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Government Services and Facilities, Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Roles: Integrators, asset owners, defensive cybersecurity analysts, OT cybersecurity engineers, cybersecurity architects, secure systems developer

Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]175	September 2025	February 2026
141.11.164[.]153	January 2026	June 2026
175.110.121[.]42	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]39	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]41	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]107	February 2026	February 2026
192.142.54[.]79	May 2026	June 2026
84.200.205[.]165	May 2026	June 2026
185.225.17[.]225	June 2026	July 2026
79.133.46[.]209	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]199	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]200	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]202	July 2026	July 2026

Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]162	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]164	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]165	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]167	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]168	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]170	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]171	January 2025	March 2026
135.136.1[.]133	March 2026	March 2026

Technique Title	ID	Use
Commonly Used Port	T0885	The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.
Remote Access Tools	T1219	The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port `22`.

Skills	Salary Boost
ScrumMaster	44%
Microsoft Azure	30%
Supply Chain	27%
Oracle eBusiness Suite	25%
Master Data Management (SAP MDM)	24%
SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)	24%
Product Support	18%
Microsoft Dynamics GP	18%
SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)	18%
Workday Software	15%

(instructions:u)	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.0%]	40
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 4.6%]	69
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-6.2%, -0.2%]	136
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-8.4%, -0.2%]	119
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-6.2%, 1.0%]	176